On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 09:33:40PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-12-11 at 21:20 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-12-11 at 12:09 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'm not actually worried about the kernel so much as libdevmapper.
> > > It
> > > is
> > > not designed for multi-threaded processes, and that has bitten us
> > > in
> > > the
> > > past. For intance, it's why we don't delete devices in
> > > dmevent_loop()
> > > on
> > > libdevmapper errors. dm_get_events() just waits and retries if
> > > getting
> > > the device list fails, and for each device, it calls dm_is_mpath
> > > and
> > > will only delete a device on DM_IS_MPATH_NO, which is what I
> > > suggested
> > > for the cleanup function.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure we've handled all of the known issues here, with
> > > fixes
> > > like:
> > > 02d4bf07 ("libmultipath: protect racy libdevmapper calls with a
> > > mutex")
> > > 34e01d2f ("multipath-tools: don't call dm_lib_release() any more")
> > >
> > > I'd rather not risk having missed some issue that could cause a
> > > temporary error in a function that we call every couple of seconds
> > > (almost always unnecessarily).
> >
> > Ok, getting it. I thought that an error in DM_TABLE_STATUS must
> > almost
> > neccessarily mean -ENXIO (from the kernel pov), which would mean that
> > some external entity removed the device, and that we should act as if
> > someone had used the "remove map" CLI command. But I didn't think
> > about
> > libdevmapper.
>
> But will libdevmapper return ENXIO if it's somehow interally confused?
> I don't think so. I believe that if we see this error code, removing
> the map is the right thing to do.
I don't think that shouldn't ever happen.
https://github.com/lvmteam/lvm2/blob/928b8e9c6eaf871b3405b91c64eac5ea854f2572/device_mapper/ioctl/libdm-iface.c#L2100
If libdevmapper gets an ENXIO from the kernel, it ends up setting
dmi.exists to 0 instead of returning the error.
-Ben
> I consider adding a patch on top of the v4 series that does this.
> If you reject it, fine :-)
>
> Regards,
> Martin
