The subarray is loaded container by load_container

The subarray is loaded container by load_container

[Xiao Ni]

Hi all

We encountered one problem at booting time:

Run MD devices:  mdadm: array /dev/md/OSVOLUME0 now has 2 devices (0 new) [FAILED]

mdadm -IRs returns 1 at the booting time. In fact the array is already running. The 
command mdadm -IRs shouldn't return 1 if all the arrays are running, right?

In IncrementalScan function, it scans all the raid in /run/mdadm/map. It contains the
subarray too. The return value is 1 from function load_container. So the return value
of IncrementalScan rv is set to 1. If all arrays are running already, I think mdadm -IRs
should return 0, not 1.

Should we checks earlier whether it's a container or not before calling load_container?

Best Regards
Xiao

Re: The subarray is loaded container by load_container

[Artur Paszkiewicz]

On 07/07/2016 11:13 AM, Xiao Ni wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> We encountered one problem at booting time:
> 
> Run MD devices:  mdadm: array /dev/md/OSVOLUME0 now has 2 devices (0 new) [FAILED]
> 
> mdadm -IRs returns 1 at the booting time. In fact the array is already running. The 
> command mdadm -IRs shouldn't return 1 if all the arrays are running, right?
> 
> In IncrementalScan function, it scans all the raid in /run/mdadm/map. It contains the
> subarray too. The return value is 1 from function load_container. So the return value
> of IncrementalScan rv is set to 1. If all arrays are running already, I think mdadm -IRs
> should return 0, not 1.
> 
> Should we checks earlier whether it's a container or not before calling load_container?
> 
> Best Regards
> Xiao
> 

Hi Xiao,

I think you're right that mdadm -IRs should return 0 in this case.
IncrementalScan should not try loading a container from a member array,
because that will always fail. Can you check if this fixes the problem
for you?

diff --git a/Incremental.c b/Incremental.c
index ba97b00..cc01d41 100644
--- a/Incremental.c
+++ b/Incremental.c
@@ -1347,8 +1347,12 @@ restart:
 
                if (devnm && strcmp(devnm, me->devnm) != 0)
                        continue;
-               if (devnm && me->metadata[0] == '/') {
+               if (me->metadata[0] == '/') {
                        char *sl;
+
+                       if (!devnm)
+                               continue;
+
                        /* member array, need to work on container */
                        strncpy(container, me->metadata+1, 32);
                        container[31] = 0;

Thanks,
Artur

Re: The subarray is loaded container by load_container

[Xiao Ni]

On 07/07/2016 06:16 PM, Artur Paszkiewicz wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 11:13 AM, Xiao Ni wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> We encountered one problem at booting time:
>>
>> Run MD devices:  mdadm: array /dev/md/OSVOLUME0 now has 2 devices (0 new) [FAILED]
>>
>> mdadm -IRs returns 1 at the booting time. In fact the array is already running. The
>> command mdadm -IRs shouldn't return 1 if all the arrays are running, right?
>>
>> In IncrementalScan function, it scans all the raid in /run/mdadm/map. It contains the
>> subarray too. The return value is 1 from function load_container. So the return value
>> of IncrementalScan rv is set to 1. If all arrays are running already, I think mdadm -IRs
>> should return 0, not 1.
>>
>> Should we checks earlier whether it's a container or not before calling load_container?
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Xiao
>>
> Hi Xiao,
>
> I think you're right that mdadm -IRs should return 0 in this case.
> IncrementalScan should not try loading a container from a member array,
> because that will always fail. Can you check if this fixes the problem
> for you?
>
> diff --git a/Incremental.c b/Incremental.c
> index ba97b00..cc01d41 100644
> --- a/Incremental.c
> +++ b/Incremental.c
> @@ -1347,8 +1347,12 @@ restart:
>   
>                  if (devnm && strcmp(devnm, me->devnm) != 0)
>                          continue;
> -               if (devnm && me->metadata[0] == '/') {
> +               if (me->metadata[0] == '/') {
>                          char *sl;
> +
> +                       if (!devnm)
> +                               continue;
> +
>                          /* member array, need to work on container */
>                          strncpy(container, me->metadata+1, 32);
>                          container[31] = 0;
>
> Thanks,
> Artur
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Artur

Sorry for late response. I have been waiting the result from customer 
and the customer haven't give me the answer. I tested this in my 
environment and this patch can fix this problem.

Best Regards
Xiao

Re: The subarray is loaded container by load_container

[Jes Sorensen]

Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com> writes:
> On 07/07/2016 06:16 PM, Artur Paszkiewicz wrote:
>> Hi Xiao,
>>
>> I think you're right that mdadm -IRs should return 0 in this case.
>> IncrementalScan should not try loading a container from a member array,
>> because that will always fail. Can you check if this fixes the problem
>> for you?
>>
>> diff --git a/Incremental.c b/Incremental.c
>> index ba97b00..cc01d41 100644
>> --- a/Incremental.c
>> +++ b/Incremental.c
>> @@ -1347,8 +1347,12 @@ restart:
>>                    if (devnm && strcmp(devnm, me->devnm) != 0)
>>                          continue;
>> -               if (devnm && me->metadata[0] == '/') {
>> +               if (me->metadata[0] == '/') {
>>                          char *sl;
>> +
>> +                       if (!devnm)
>> +                               continue;
>> +
>>                          /* member array, need to work on container */
>>                          strncpy(container, me->metadata+1, 32);
>>                          container[31] = 0;
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Artur
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Hi Artur
>
> Sorry for late response. I have been waiting the result from customer
> and the customer haven't give me the answer. I tested this in my
> environment and this patch can fix this problem.

Artur,

Do you have a version of this patch you would like me to apply to the
official mdadm tree?

Cheers,
Jes

Re: The subarray is loaded container by load_container

[Artur Paszkiewicz]

On 08/04/2016 08:38 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Do you have a version of this patch you would like me to apply to the
> official mdadm tree?

Hi Jes,

Yes I do, I'll send the patch in a moment.

Artur