Skip to content

Conversation

@sureshanaparti
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR support custom SSH port for KVM hosts using the configuration 'kvm.host.discovery.ssh.port', during

  • KVM host discovery to connect to the Host during Add Host command
  • Any other operations on host using SSH

Types of changes

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
  • Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
  • Build/CI
  • Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

  • Major
  • Minor

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

…m.host.discovery.ssh.port'

- Use the custom SSH port for KVM host discovery to connect to the Host during Add Host command
- and any other operations on host using SSH
@sureshanaparti
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 16.26%. Comparing base (ce42ce5) to head (2e49b0c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on 4.20.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...che/cloudstack/backup/NetworkerBackupProvider.java 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
...rvisor/kvm/discoverer/LibvirtServerDiscoverer.java 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
...rc/main/java/com/cloud/utils/ssh/SSHCmdHelper.java 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               4.20   #12571   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     16.26%   16.26%           
  Complexity    13428    13428           
=========================================
  Files          5660     5660           
  Lines        499959   499964    +5     
  Branches      60707    60708    +1     
=========================================
+ Hits          81326    81331    +5     
+ Misses       409560   409559    -1     
- Partials       9073     9074    +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 4.16% <ø> (ø)
unittests 17.12% <33.33%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16684

@sureshanaparti
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan test

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

"This timeout overrides the wait global config. This holds a comma separated key value pairs containing timeout (in seconds) for specific commands. " +
"For example: DhcpEntryCommand=600, SavePasswordCommand=300, VmDataCommand=300", false);

ConfigKey<Integer> KVMHostDiscoverySshPort = new ConfigKey<>(ConfigKey.CATEGORY_ADVANCED, Integer.class,
Copy link
Member

@winterhazel winterhazel Feb 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wouldn't it be better to have this as a parameter on host addition/edit to allow configuring it on a host-level?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can, but do we really want to allow to use a different ssh port for all hosts within a cluster? seems a bit overkill.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see a problem allowing it. Maybe a single host needs to use a different port for SSH connection.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, a bit of an edge case, only applicable to smaller installations I’d guess (in my ignorance). You are not asking to remove a higher level setting are you? just to add a per host parameter..

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the config is applicable for the kvm hosts on the entire cloudstack installation, mainly for large deployments where the custom port is used for all the hosts. it doesn't provide flexibility to set few hosts on one port, and few hosts on the other. it's always better to have all these hosts accessible on the same port. a new host parameter (that can be updated through add or update host call) can provide flexibility, but it's mostly NULL/empty (when not defined or default port is used) and is not applicable for VMware hosts.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sureshanaparti
one option would be allowing host:port when adding a host
it is compatible with current format: host. no UI changes, no global settings

similar to the ceph monitors which supports mon1,mon2,mon3:6789 as the monitor
refer to #6792

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so reading back this threat; are we not merging this and going for a different solution, @winterhazel @weizhouapache ? cc @sureshanaparti

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no threat @DaanHoogland 😄

I think it would be better to work on a different solution

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DaanHoogland @weizhouapache I prefer the host-level configuration too

Copy link
Contributor

@nvazquez nvazquez Feb 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi guys, sorry but I don't see what the issue is defining this setting at cluster level, I think trying to scope the setting/detail to host level may not be necessary. Currently the host discovery port is hardcoded to be port 22 globally. This PR will give operators flexibility to set a custom port (in case its needed) for hosts to be added on a cluster (if we scope it to cluster). What do you think? @winterhazel @weizhouapache @sureshanaparti @DaanHoogland

@blueorangutan
Copy link

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-15362)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 58847 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr12571-t15362-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 141 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test Result Time (s) Test File

Copy link
Contributor

@DaanHoogland DaanHoogland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

clgtm

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants