On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 10:58 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 06:06 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 04/06/2010 11:54 AM, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
> >> On 03/30/2010 02:30 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> While doing what should be testing a simple iscsi related patch,
> >>> I encountered the following issue:
> >>>
> >>> Take a system with a single disk, sda, which has a /boot on
> >>> sda1 and a PV on sda2. This PV is the PV for the 1 PV VG:
> >>> VolGroup, which contains LV's lv_swap, lv_root and lv_home.
> >>>
> >>> "Attach" an iscsi disk to this system, which becomes sdb,
> >>> which has a /boot on sdb1 and a PV on sdb2. This PV is the PV
> >>> for the 1 PV VG: VolGroup, which contains LV's lv_swap and
> >>> lv_root.
> >>>
> >>> Notice that:
> >>> 1) The 2 VG's have the same name
> >>> 2) Only sda has a lv_home LV.
> >>>
> >>> Now in the filter UI select only disk sdb to install to, then
> >>> the following may (depending on scanning order) happen:
> >>>
> >>> Assume sdb gets scanned first by devicetree.py:
> >>> - when scanning sdb2, handleUdevLVMPVFormat() will
> >>> call "lvm lvchange -ay" for all LV's in this VG
> >>> (as seen by udev, more on that later).
> >>> - at this point, sda has not been scanned yet, so
> >>> isIgnored has not been called for sda2 yet, and thus
> >>> lvm_cc_addFilterRejectRegexp("sda2") has not been called
> >>> yet.
> >>> - thus lvm lvchange sees both sda2 and sdb2, it complains
> >>> that there are 2 identically named VG's and picks the one
> >>> using the sda2 PV.
> >>
> >> Maybe we should stop the installation at this point and tell the user
> >> that he named two VGs the same and needs to address this before
> >> proceeding with the installation? Because otherwise we will need to do
> >> too many changes for a corner case that only occurs infrequently. And we
> >> still won't be completely happy with them.
> >>
> >
> > That won't work, as there actually are no duplicate VG's when looking only
> > at the devices the user selected in the filter UI, the problem is
> > that lvm at this point does not honor what we've selected in the filter UI
> > and what not. Which is caused by the way we build the ignore these devices
> > cmdline argument for lvm.
>
> Perhaps we should be generating an lvm.conf with a proper filter section for
> this instead? It's not really an ideal solution :/
It might be worth passing lvm a full list of the devices it is allowed
to look at instead of telling it which devices to ignore. We will know
the full list of PVs at activation time. I've considered this on several
occasions since initially writing this stuff, but never tried it. Maybe
that's what you meant anyway.
Dave
>
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
