From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 237A47F553
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:46:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 198301A075
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:46:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8FE0D1A069
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:46:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5E5CD42E43
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:46:25 +0100 (CET)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<b5fdb4ce-d6fa-b05b-7895-6119c7f51622@proxmox.com>
<28cc8b6a-b34f-4cb4-a5de-9e4b8f5aa4df@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <24ca2da5-08d5-eab0-01e7-06c5fa4efd1a@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:46:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28cc8b6a-b34f-4cb4-a5de-9e4b8f5aa4df@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 1.911 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -3.449 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [clusterconfig.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH cluster] fix #3596: handle delnode of
offline node
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:46:26 -0000
Am 12.11.21 um 13:14 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 12.11.21 12:50, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> Am 12.11.21 um 09:45 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler:
>>> the recommended way is to first shutdown, then delnode, and never let it
>>> come back online, in which case corosync-cfgtool won't be able to kill
>>> the removed (offline) node.
>>>
>>> also, the order was wrong - if we first update corosync.conf to remove
>>> the node entry from the nodelist, corosync doesn't know about the nodeid
>>> anymore, so killing will fail even if the node is still online.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm | 8 ++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm
>>> index 8f4a5bb..5a6a1ac 100644
>>> --- a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm
>>> +++ b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm
>>> @@ -485,9 +485,13 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>>> delete $nodelist->{$node};
>>> - PVE::Corosync::update_nodelist($conf, $nodelist);
>>> + # allowed to fail when node is already shut down!
>>> + eval {
>>> + PVE::Tools::run_command(['corosync-cfgtool','-k', $nodeid])
>>> + if defined($nodeid);
>>> + };
>>>
>>
>> But what if it fails for a different reason than 'CS_ERR_NOT_EXIST'? Shouldn't we match the error?
>
> at least that examples is like ENOENT on unlink, an OK error (user could
> have -k'illed it before that).
>
My example is when it's *not* that error ;)
With the patch we treat all errors as OK.