From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8653FC433DB for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D928B64D79 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:23:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D928B64D79 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=chinatelecom.cn Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=tempfail smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-376-QKSEH59MPImCkoVxFMfyRA-1; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 22:22:56 -0500 X-MC-Unique: QKSEH59MPImCkoVxFMfyRA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C40F79EC0; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6E15C730; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7754E58E; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 11I3Mcih017601 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 22:22:46 -0500 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id B7658200AC37; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:22:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast02.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1ACA2126C9E for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B67B3800B28 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 03:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.220]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-174-rHFZWMtLOnWDYJIBI-zhyg-1; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 22:22:31 -0500 X-MC-Unique: rHFZWMtLOnWDYJIBI-zhyg-1 HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.92:13115.1919750152 HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000 HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP Received: from clientip-202.80.192.21?logid-9eb2d1d5db9340d2af8aa147d4e0424c (unknown [172.18.0.92]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 6050E2800AF; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:22:20 +0800 (CST) X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: wucy11@chinatelecom.cn Received: from ([172.18.0.92]) by App0021 with ESMTP id 9eb2d1d5db9340d2af8aa147d4e0424c for christophe.varoqui@opensvc.com; Thu Feb 18 11:22:30 2021 X-Transaction-ID: 9eb2d1d5db9340d2af8aa147d4e0424c X-filter-score: filter<0> X-Real-From: wucy11@chinatelecom.cn X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.92 X-MEDUSA-Status: 0 To: Martin Wilck , "bmarzins@redhat.com" References: <1612847967-8813-1-git-send-email-bmarzins@redhat.com> <1612847967-8813-3-git-send-email-bmarzins@redhat.com> <20210211044833.GJ15006@octiron.msp.redhat.com> <293ad1261123efb63dcfff4d02440e1728b3c013.camel@suse.com> From: Chongyun Wu Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:22:10 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <293ad1261123efb63dcfff4d02440e1728b3c013.camel@suse.com> X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 X-loop: dm-devel@redhat.com Cc: "dm-devel@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] multipathd: add recheck_wwid_time option to verify the path wwid X-BeenThere: dm-devel@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: device-mapper development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" On 2021/2/11 20:14, Martin Wilck wrote: >>> But foremost, do we really have to try to deal with configuration >>> mistakes as blatant as this? What if a user sets the same WWID for >>> different devices, or re-uses the same WWID on different storage >>> servers? I already hesitated about the code I added myself for >>> catching >>> user errors in the WWIDs file, but this seems even more far- >>> fetched. >>> >>> Please convince me. >> >> Err.. An important customer corrupted their data and while they admit >> that they were at fault, it's hard for them to guarantee that >> something >> like this won't happen in the future, and they asked if multipath >> could >> do a better job of catching these sorts of mistakes. Obviously this >> is >> more convincing when it's coming from your customer. But the fact >> still >> stands that this has happened to multiple users even with our >> existing >> code to catch this. > > I wasn't aware of multiple affected users. I saw Chongyun's post and it > looked to me as if this had happend once, likely in his organization. > It wasn't even clear to me whether production data were affected. > Had customers have made incorrect storage back-end operations during the expansion process, which has caused the destruction of customer data, which cannot be repaired using any tools. And I reproduce it in our lab too. Customers definitely hope that multipath-tools can probide protection in this case, becuase if it is important custmer data storage in the LUN, the loss will be great. -- Best Regard, Chongyun Wu -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel