On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 12:00 +0100, Peter Rajnoha wrote: > > OK, makes sense. But I haven't looked at what implications this might > have for 99-systemd.rules yet, but we surely need to have that > covered > somehow. > > Maybe, now, I would probably even remove the mention about > DM_SUSPENDED > in 12-dm-permissions.rules, it looks superfluous there. We normally > set > perms based on names, not on DM_SUSPENDED state. I'm not sure why we > mentioned it there before. > > Do mpath rules still need to look at DM_SUSPENDED? No, and yes :-) If we remove the DISK_RO clause, DM_SUSPENDED and DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG (as input from 10-dm.rules) are equivalent for multipath. We'd be able to modify 11-dm-mpath.rules such that DM_SUSPENDED isn't used any more. The downside is that 11-dm- mpath.rules needs to modify DM_UDEV_DISABLE_OTHER_RULES_FLAG under certain conditions, and that DM_SUSPENDED is shorter and expresses the actual situation more intuitively. Therefore I don't love the idea to replace use of DM_SUSPENDED with "DUDORF" in 11-dm-mpath.rules. My personal take on this is that 11-dm-mpath.rules actually belongs to device-mapper (being executed before 13-dm-disk.rules), even though it's not maintained in the lvm2 repository. As such, it should be allowed to access dm-internal flags like DM_SUSPENDED. Not that's not a problem with this patch; the multipath rules can just access .DM_SUSPENDED instead of DM_SUSPENDED. Regards Martin
