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 43CF87F423 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:51:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 39E721907E for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:50:56 +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 A006919073 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:50:55 +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 754C343417 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:50:55 +0100 (CET) To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:50:46 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.914 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 11:51:26 -0000 Am 12.11.21 um 09:45 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: > the recommended way is to first shutdown, then delnode, and never let it > come back online, in which case corosync-cfgtool won't be able to kill > the removed (offline) node. > > also, the order was wrong - if we first update corosync.conf to remove > the node entry from the nodelist, corosync doesn't know about the nodeid > anymore, so killing will fail even if the node is still online. > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler > --- > data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm > index 8f4a5bb..5a6a1ac 100644 > --- a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm > +++ b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm > @@ -485,9 +485,13 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > > delete $nodelist->{$node}; > > - PVE::Corosync::update_nodelist($conf, $nodelist); > + # allowed to fail when node is already shut down! > + eval { > + PVE::Tools::run_command(['corosync-cfgtool','-k', $nodeid]) > + if defined($nodeid); > + }; > But what if it fails for a different reason than 'CS_ERR_NOT_EXIST'? Shouldn't we match the error? > - PVE::Tools::run_command(['corosync-cfgtool','-k', $nodeid]) if defined($nodeid); > + PVE::Corosync::update_nodelist($conf, $nodelist); > }; > > $config_change_lock->($code); >