Add shared_targets column to volumes

Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:

One problematic thing about dealing with device attachments is that some devices share a single target for multiple volumes while others have a single unique target for every volume.

For example, a device utilizing shared targets, may have a single iSCSI connection shared for multiple volumes attached to a Nova compute node.

This can be troublesome because extra care needs to be taken by consumers to make sure that the target it’s not being used by another volumes on a system when a delete/detach call is made.

Problem description

Currently when os-brick receives a detach operation it attempts to inspect the system and determine if there are multiple volumes attached to the host sharing the same target. Most of the time this works, however it tends to be a bit prone to races, additionally attempting bus scans is not only inefficient but unreliable.

The other problem is that currently there is no indication for os-brick to know if it’s dealing with a device that utilizes shared targets or not, so we go through this scanning routine even if we don’t necessarily need to.

The process of removing targets would be much more robust if we actually knew ahead of time if the volume was hosted on a device that utilizes shared targets, in which case we could do things more efficiently including using locks on a compute node around attach/detach operations for a specific backend.

Use Cases

This improves the existing use case of detaching volumes correctly and efficiently. The basic condition is that you have a device that utilizes shared-targets, and you have a single volume (V-A) from that device attached to a compute node. A user issues a detach call and at the same time another user issues an attach of a different volume (V-B) from the same backend that will land on the same compute node.

It’s possible that the connection response for V-B is completed under the assumption that the target exists (due to V-B) but then the V-A detach process performs it’s checks prior to the attachment of V-B being finalized, and as a result it removes the target and the connection of V-B will appear to have been successful but the volume will not be accessible.

Proposed change

Add a column to the volume reference that indicates if the backend associated with the volume utilizes shared-targets or not. In addition add a backend-name member to the volume detail view. When shared-targets is True, the consumer will know that they’re dealing with a device that uses shared-targets and that it needs to take some extra precautions.

In addition we need to provide a unique identifier for the backend, while at the same time not leaking details of the abstraction to end users. The service UUID should work nicely for this.

For the case of folks that use a single device to back multiple c-vol services we’ll provide the ability to over-ride/set this identifier in the config file. That way an admin can choose to set multiple c-vol configurations to use the same backend_id if needed.

Note that by default we will set the shared_targets flag to True. We use this as the default because there’s no harm or functional issues with treating unique targets as shared, it’s just going to introduce some unnecessary locking but will not impact functionality. Conversely if a device that actually uses shared targets is False and not locked we have a race condition between attach and detach calls that causes problems.


The scan method we use today works most of the time and is reasonable. We could certainly just continue to use that by itself.

Data model impact

This change adds a new boolean column to the Volumes table (shared_targets).

  • What new data objects and/or database schema changes is this going to require?

    This introduces a new column to the Volumes Table

  • What database migrations will accompany this change.

    We’ll perform a DB migration that adds the column and sets its value to True. Setting to True is safe for non-shared targets so while it’s not necessarily the most efficient way to do things, it’s safe and reliable.

  • How will the initial set of new data objects be generated, for example if you need to take into account existing volumes, or modify other existing data describe how that will work.

    During init of the volume service, we’ll query the backend capabilities for the setting “shared_targets”, if the value from the stats structure is False we’ll check any volumes that are set as True and update them accordingly. This way we migrated everything and set it to true, then on service init we verify that the setting is actually correct.

    NOTE that we’re already iterating over the volumes of a backend on init, so we’re not introducing any new overhead or lag here.

REST API impact

This change does not impact the arguments or options for any of the existing API calls, however it does add additional fields to the Volume Get response.

When the appropriate micro-version is selected, we’ll add two additional fields to the detailed volume response view:

shared_targets backend_name

Security impact

Notifications impact

Other end user impact

This change mostly just provides the user with additional info. It’s up to the user/consumer to determine if they want to do anything with this extra info or not, but it does not change their current use-cases or workflow.

Performance Impact

Other deployer impact

Developer impact

Be default we’ll set the shared_targets flag for volumes to True, but driver maintainers should add the appropriate stats field to their driver to change this if they don’t use shared_targets.



Primary assignee:


Work Items

Add the changes to Cinder and bump the max support MV in cinderclient.



Add a functional test for the specific microversion and ensure the appropriate response.

Documentation Impact

Documenting the new fields in the detailed volume response, and also recommend how it can be used. Or just reference this spec.