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 43D1DC562 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:40:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 33FFDF3E for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:39:53 +0200 (CEST) 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 F3441F33 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:39:51 +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 C4A3C4097A for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:39:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2a67ca76-f10f-5c2f-44a7-9d9da0c36c78@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:39:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 From: Thomas Lamprecht To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20220406114657.452190-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <1649404843.ds1yioa8qv.astroid@nora.none> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <1649404843.ds1yioa8qv.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.593 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 -3.086 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 storage] rbd: alloc image: fix #3970 avoid ambiguous rbd path 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:40:23 -0000 On 08.04.22 10:04, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > On April 6, 2022 1:46 pm, Aaron Lauterer wrote: >> If two RBD storages use the same pool, but connect to different >> clusters, we cannot say to which cluster the mapped RBD image belongs = to >> if krbd is used. To avoid potential data loss, we need to verify that = no >> other storage is configured that could have a volume mapped under the >> same path before we create the image. >> >> The ambiguous mapping is in >> /dev/rbd/// where the namespace is optional. >> >> Once we can tell the clusters apart in the mapping, we can remove thes= e >> checks again. >> >> See bug #3969 for more information on the root cause. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer >=20 > Acked-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler > Reviewed-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler >=20 > (small nit below, and given the rather heavy-handed approach a 2nd ack = > might not hurt.. IMHO, a few easily fixable false-positives beat more=20 > users actually running into this with move disk/volume and losing=20 > data..) The obvious question to me is: why bother with this workaround when we ca= n make udev create the symlink now already? Patching the rules file and/or binary shipped by ceph-common, or shipping= our own such script + rule, would seem relatively simple.