From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 07F6960EAF for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:49:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E67181BFD2 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:48:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 5B4F21BFC8 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:48:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 19EF945632 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:48:59 +0200 (CEST) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20200925125349.2331629-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <954846404.464.1601041007631@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <23b09052-6b1f-ee28-0b91-7c3f629ee0c6@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:48:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/81.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <954846404.464.1601041007631@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.066 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.214 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH cluster] pmxcfs sync: properly check for corosync error X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:49:30 -0000 On 25.09.20 15:36, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >=20 >> Thomas Lamprecht hat am 25.09.2020 15:23 ges= chrieben: >> >> =20 >> On 25.09.20 14:53, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >>> dfsm_send_state_message_full always returns !=3D 0, since it returns >>> cs_error_t which starts with CS_OK at 1, with values >1 representing >>> errors. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler >>> --- >>> unfortunately not that cause of Alexandre's shutdown/restart issue, b= ut >>> might have caused some hangs as well since we would be stuck in >>> START_SYNC in that case.. >>> >>> data/src/dfsm.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> >> >> applied, thanks! But as the old wrong code showed up as critical error= >> "failed to send SYNC_START message" if it worked, it either (almost) n= ever >> works here or is not a probable case, else we'd saw this earlier. >> >> (still a valid and appreciated fix, just noting) >=20 > no, the old wrong code never triggered the error handling (log + leave)= , no matter whether the send worked or failed - the return value cannot b= e 0, so the condition is never true. if the send failed, the code assumed= the state machine is now in START_SYNC mode and waits for STATE messages= , which will never come since the other nodes haven't switched to START_S= YNC.. >=20 ah yeah, was confused about the CS_OK value for a moment > it would still show up in the logs since cpg_mcast_joined failure is al= ways verbose in the logs, but it would not be obvious that it caused the = state machine to take a wrong turn I think. >=20