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 E7826BE87E for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BFDCD1AAFA for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:31 +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 ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:31 +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 D482B48D13 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:41:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Hanreich References: <20231222095806.47673-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Friedrich Weber In-Reply-To: <20231222095806.47673-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.109 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 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager v4] postinst: filter rbds in lvm 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, 29 Dec 2023 12:41:32 -0000 I started testing this and will send a complete mail later, just wanted to mention one thing I've stumbled upon. Consider this pre-upgrade lvm.conf: devices { # added by pve-manager to avoid scanning ZFS zvols global_filter=[ "r|/dev/zd.*|"] } As `lvmconfig` normalizes the linebreak, SET_FILTER is 1 but apparently the `sed` command produces a malformed config (I think it comments out only the first line, but I didn't check). The validity check fails so the pre-upgrade lvm.conf is restored, according to the logs: '/etc/lvm/lvm.conf' -> '/etc/lvm/lvm.conf.bak' (backup: '/etc/lvm/lvm.conf.bak~') Setting 'global_filter' in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf to prevent zvols and rbds from being scanned: global_filter="r|/dev/zd.*|" => global_filter=["r|/dev/zd.*|","r|/dev/rbd.*|"] Parse error at byte 103604 (line 2307): unexpected token Failed to load config file /etc/lvm/lvm.conf Invalid LVM config detected - restoring from /etc/lvm/lvm.conf.bak Setting up proxmox-ve (8.1.0) ... This is quite the edge case. So I'm not sure if it worth the hassle to change the logic to handle it properly (especially as the validity check handles it somewhat gracefully)?