From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@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 7F8F960E2A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:37:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6FE581BEDE for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:36:52 +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 478401BED2 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:36:51 +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 0F47F45643 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:36:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:36:47 +0200 (CEST) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <954846404.464.1601041007631@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <de0ed979-6d8b-0574-2cf8-6efbbade19e1@proxmox.com> References: <20200925125349.2331629-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <de0ed979-6d8b-0574-2cf8-6efbbade19e1@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev22 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.036 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 <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, 25 Sep 2020 13:37:22 -0000 > Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> hat am 25.09.2020 15:23 geschr= ieben: >=20 > =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. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> > > --- > > unfortunately not that cause of Alexandre's shutdown/restart issue, but > > might have caused some hangs as well since we would be stuck in > > START_SYNC in that case.. > >=20 > > data/src/dfsm.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >=20 > > >=20 > 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) neve= r > works here or is not a probable case, else we'd saw this earlier. >=20 > (still a valid and appreciated fix, just noting) no, the old wrong code never triggered the error handling (log + leave), no= matter whether the send worked or failed - the return value cannot be 0, s= o the condition is never true. if the send failed, the code assumed the sta= te machine is now in START_SYNC mode and waits for STATE messages, which wi= ll never come since the other nodes haven't switched to START_SYNC.. it would still show up in the logs since cpg_mcast_joined failure is always= verbose in the logs, but it would not be obvious that it caused the state = machine to take a wrong turn I think.