> -----Original Message----- > From: NeilBrown [mailto:neilb@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:14 PM > To: Dorau, Lukasz > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Williams, Dan J; Labun, Marcin; Ciechanowski, > Ed > Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix: do not overwrite existing devices' symlinks > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:13:05 +0000 "Dorau, Lukasz" > <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: NeilBrown [mailto:neilb@xxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:27 AM > > > To: Dorau, Lukasz > > > Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Williams, Dan J; Labun, Marcin; > Ciechanowski, > > > Ed > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix: do not overwrite existing devices' symlinks > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:06:52 +0100 Lukasz Dorau > <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If the device's name is given in /etc/mdadm.conf, create_mddev() > > > > does not check if the map contains a device of this name (mdopen.c:140). > > > > If it does, the symlink of that name will be overwritten. > > > > > > > > create_mddev() has been changed. Now it checks if the map contains > > > > a device of the name given in /etc/mdadm.conf. > > > > If it does, the appropriate suffix is added to the given name. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Can you please remind me what the big picture problem is here?? > > > > > > It seem like you are suggesting that if > > > /dev/md/thing > > > > > > is given in mdadm.conf, but some other array is already assembled with the > > > name /dev/md/thing, then the array from mdadm.conf should be assembled > as > > > /dev/md/thing0 > > > or something like that - is that correct? > > > > > > I don't think we want that. If there is a name conflict like this with a > > > name given in mdadm.conf, then one of the arrays should fail to assemble as > > > this is really a fairly serious configuration error. > > > > > > Or did I misunderstand? > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: NeilBrown [mailto:neilb@xxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:30 AM > > > To: Dorau, Lukasz > > > Subject: Re: mdadm: checking dev's names from mdadm.conf - question > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:27:58 +0000 "Dorau, Lukasz" > <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Is it OK that mdadm does not check if a symlink of the name given in > > > /etc/mdadm.conf already exists (in function create_mddev() in > mdopen.c:140) ? > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > If we modify the original /etc/mdadm.conf file: > > > > > > > > ARRAY metadata=imsm UUID=e92bcf10:ca6b3fbd:95904441:5472d320 > > > > ARRAY /dev/md/vol1 container=e92bcf10:ca6b3fbd:95904441:5472d320 > > > member=0 UUID=ea776aa6:4691d6ee:9400457e:73e1e9d9 > > > > ARRAY metadata=imsm UUID=d61a8e6a:ed4e8ed6:dc0f4fb7:f839907e > > > > ARRAY /dev/md/vol2 container=d61a8e6a:ed4e8ed6:dc0f4fb7:f839907e > > > member=0 UUID=b33bbd5e:964c7acc:66cfdfcc:7a938902 > > > > > > > > by adding the 2nd container 's name /dev/md/imsm0 to the 3rd line: > > > > > > > > ARRAY metadata=imsm UUID=e92bcf10:ca6b3fbd:95904441:5472d320 > > > > ARRAY /dev/md/vol1 container=e92bcf10:ca6b3fbd:95904441:5472d320 > > > member=0 UUID=ea776aa6:4691d6ee:9400457e:73e1e9d9 > > > > ARRAY /dev/md/imsm0 metadata=imsm > > > UUID=d61a8e6a:ed4e8ed6:dc0f4fb7:f839907e > > > > ARRAY /dev/md/vol2 container=d61a8e6a:ed4e8ed6:dc0f4fb7:f839907e > > > member=0 UUID=b33bbd5e:964c7acc:66cfdfcc:7a938902 > > > > > > > > mdadm will create the first container /dev/md127 and the symlink of > default > > > name /dev/md/imsm0 (and the first volume /dev/md126 with symlink > > > /dev/md/vol1). > > > > Later it will create the second container /dev/md125 and the symlink of the > > > name given in /etc/mdadm.conf - /dev/md/imsm0 - the same as the name of > > > the first container. > > > > > > > > Mdadm does not check if the symlink of the given name already exists and > it > > > _overwrites_ the first symlink. Is it OK or maybe should it be corrected? > > > > > > > > > > Ahhh.. this is where the big-picture bit is... > > > > > > I don't have a big problem with it over-writing the symlink - that is what > > > you asked for in a way. > > > > > > However I also wouldn't have a problem with mdadm refusing the assemble > the > > > second container as its name is already in use. > > > > > > > > > So, are you going to apply this patch or do you want it to be fixed in another > way? > > The approaches I said were OK were: > 1/ over-write the symlink > 2/ refuse to assemble the second container > > The approach the patch takes is > 3/ use a different name to the one in mdadm.conf > > As 3 != 1 and 3 != 2, I'm not going to apply the patch. > OK, I had misunderstood you previously. Regards, Lukasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
