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 902B2C087B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:04:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 757B116F15 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:03:48 +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>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:03:44 +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 96E2D490D1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:03:44 +0100 (CET) From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:03:30 +0100 Message-Id: <20240111150332.733635-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.106 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [lvmplugin.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 0/2] fix #4997: lvm: avoid autoactivating (new) LVs after boot 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: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:04:18 -0000 By default, LVM autoactivates LVs after boot. In a cluster with VM disks on a shared LVM VG (e.g. on top of iSCSI), this can indirectly cause guest creation or VM live-migration to fail. See bug #4997 [1] and patch #2 for details. The goal of this series is to avoid autoactivating LVs after boot. Fabian suggested to use the "activation skip" flag for LVs. LVs with that flag can only be activated if the `-K` flag is passed during activation (`-K` is not passed for autoactivation after boot). With patch #1, the LVM plugin passes the `-K` flag to activation commands. If the LV does not have the "activation skip" flag set, this should not have any effect, so it should be safe to apply this patch in the near future. It does not yet fix #4997, though. With patch #2, the LVM plugin sets the "activation skip" flag for newly created LVs. As this can be considered a breaking change, it may make sense to only apply it close to the PVE 9 release. If patch #1 has been available in the last PVE 8 minor release, this should ensure a smooth upgrade even if a cluster is temporarily mixed between PVE 8.x and 9 (PVE 8.x will be able to activate LVs created by PVE 9 with "activation skip"). This will fix #4997 for newly created LVs. Some points to discuss: * Fabian and I discussed whether it may be better to pass `-K` and set the "activation skip" flag only for LVs on a *shared* LVM storage. But this may cause issues for users that incorrectly mark an LVM storage as shared, create a bunch of LVs (with "activation skip" flag), then unset the "shared" flag, and won't be able to activate LVs afterwards (`lvchange -ay` without `-K` on an LV with "activation skip" is a noop). What do you think? * Even with patch #1 and #2 applied, users can still run into #4997 for LVs that were created before #2, so without the "activation skip" flag. So it might be good to include a note in the 8->9 release notes and/or a warning in the pve8to9 helper and/or ship a script that automatically sets the flag for all existing (PVE-owned) LVs. [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4997 storage: Friedrich Weber (2): lvm: ignore "activation skip" LV flag during LV activation fix #4997: lvm: set "activation skip" flag for newly created LVs src/PVE/Storage/LVMPlugin.pm | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Summary over all repositories: 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) -- Generated by git-murpp 0.5.0