From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 1A91570D8C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:09:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 12DDF22809 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:09:34 +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 56F84227FB for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:09:33 +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 2B68744C4E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:09:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <f920fb96-2369-e050-fe0f-a3517eaf056c@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:08:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/93.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20210928114001.164081-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20210928114001.164081-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210928114001.164081-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.232 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 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. [lvmthin.pm, disks.pm, lvm.pm, directory.pm, zfs.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH storage 02/10] api: disk: work around udev bug to ensure its database is updated 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: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:09:34 -0000 On 28.09.21 13:39, Fabian Ebner wrote: > There is a udev bug [0] which can ultimately lead to the udev database > for certain devices not being actively updated. Determining whether a > disk is used or not in get_disks() (in part) relies upon lsblk, which > queries the udev database. Ensure the information is updated by > manually calling 'udevadm trigger' for the changed devices. > > It's most important for the 'directory' API path, as mounting depends > on the '/dev/disk/by-uuid'-symlink to be generated. > > [0]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/18525 > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > --- > PVE/API2/Disks.pm | 11 ++++++++++- > PVE/API2/Disks/Directory.pm | 6 ++++++ > PVE/API2/Disks/LVM.pm | 8 +++++++- > PVE/API2/Disks/LVMThin.pm | 6 ++++++ > PVE/API2/Disks/ZFS.pm | 6 ++++++ > 5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > applied, thanks! albeit putting that into a method and only calling it like: PVE::Diskmanage::workaround_stale_udev_db_bug(); # FIXME: remove in PVE 8.x would have been slightly nicer, or at least more concise. But anyhow, no biggie -> applied.