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 C32EB7F5A5 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:03:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BAD411A575 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:03:43 +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 272111A56A for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:03:43 +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 ECD7D43417 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:03:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <712d3780-0c01-7885-5245-8926bb1cc98d@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:03:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/95.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Fabian Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <28cc8b6a-b34f-4cb4-a5de-9e4b8f5aa4df@proxmox.com> <24ca2da5-08d5-eab0-01e7-06c5fa4efd1a@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <24ca2da5-08d5-eab0-01e7-06c5fa4efd1a@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.846 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:03:43 -0000 On 12.11.21 13:46, Fabian Ebner wrote: > 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 Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >>>> the recommended way is to first shutdown, then delnode, and never le= t it >>>> come back online, in which case corosync-cfgtool won't be able to ki= ll >>>> the removed (offline) node. >>>> >>>> also, the order was wrong - if we first update corosync.conf to remo= ve >>>> the node entry from the nodelist, corosync doesn't know about the no= deid >>>> anymore, so killing will fail even if the node is still online. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler >>>> --- >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0 data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm | 8 ++++++-- >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterC= onfig.pm >>>> index 8f4a5bb..5a6a1ac 100644 >>>> --- a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm >>>> +++ b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm >>>> @@ -485,9 +485,13 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 = delete $nodelist->{$node}; >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0 -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PVE::Corosy= nc::update_nodelist($conf, $nodelist); >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 # allowed to fail when n= ode is already shut down! >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 eval { >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PVE::Tools::run_command(= ['corosync-cfgtool','-k', $nodeid]) >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 = if defined($nodeid); >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 }; >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=20 >>> >>> 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 cou= ld >> have -k'illed it before that). >> >=20 > My example is when it's *not* that error ;) > With the patch we treat all errors as OK. ah misread, sorry. But anyhow, the other error I see in exec/cfg.c's message_handler_req_lib_cfg_killnode is CS_ERR_LIBRARY, and that is rathe= r unlikely. maybe a warn $@ that silences the "ERR_NOT_EXISTS" one could be nice thou= gh