From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.weber@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 E7826BE87E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BFDCD1AAFA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:31 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:31 +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 D482B48D13
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <a2719cf9-8e48-476c-bb73-f4aa0d9da32b@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
References: <20231222095806.47673-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231222095806.47673-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.109 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager v4] postinst: filter rbds in lvm
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, 29 Dec 2023 12:41:32 -0000
I started testing this and will send a complete mail later, just wanted
to mention one thing I've stumbled upon.
Consider this pre-upgrade lvm.conf:
devices {
# added by pve-manager to avoid scanning ZFS zvols
global_filter=[
"r|/dev/zd.*|"]
}
As `lvmconfig` normalizes the linebreak, SET_FILTER is 1 but apparently
the `sed` command produces a malformed config (I think it comments out
only the first line, but I didn't check). The validity check fails so
the pre-upgrade lvm.conf is restored, according to the logs:
'/etc/lvm/lvm.conf' -> '/etc/lvm/lvm.conf.bak' (backup:
'/etc/lvm/lvm.conf.bak~')
Setting 'global_filter' in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf to prevent zvols and rbds
from being scanned:
global_filter="r|/dev/zd.*|" =>
global_filter=["r|/dev/zd.*|","r|/dev/rbd.*|"]
Parse error at byte 103604 (line 2307): unexpected token
Failed to load config file /etc/lvm/lvm.conf
Invalid LVM config detected - restoring from /etc/lvm/lvm.conf.bak
Setting up proxmox-ve (8.1.0) ...
This is quite the edge case. So I'm not sure if it worth the hassle to
change the logic to handle it properly (especially as the validity check
handles it somewhat gracefully)?