From: Martin Wilck <email@example.com>
To: Christian Hesse <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: LVM general discussion and development
Heming Zhao <email@example.com>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
LVM general discussion and development <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH 1/1] pvscan: wait for udevd
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:49:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Wed, 2021-02-17 at 13:03 +0100, Christian Hesse wrote:
> Let's keep this in mind. Now let's have a look at udevd startup: It
> being ready by calling sd_notifyf(), but it loads rules and applies
> permissions before doing so .
> Even before we have some code about handling events and monitoring
It loads the rules, but events will only be processed after entering
sd_event_loop(), which happens after the sd_notify() call.
Anyway, booting the system with "udev.log-priority=debug" might provide
further insight. Oleksandr, could you try that (without the After=
> So I guess pvscan is started in initialization phase before udevd
> being ready. And obviously there is any kind of race condition.
Right. Some uevent might arrive between the creation of the monitor
socket in monitor_new() and entering the event loop. Such event would
be handled immediately, and possibly before systemd receives the
sd_notify message, so a race condition looks possible.
> With the ordering "After=" in `lvm2-pvscan@.service` the service
> start is
> queued at initialization phase, but actual start and pvscan execution
> delayed until udevd signaled being ready.
> > But in general, I think this needs deeper analysis. Looking at
> > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/69611, the workaround appears to
> > have
> > been found simply by drawing an analogy to a previous similar case.
> > I'd like to understand what happened on the arch system when the
> > error
> > occured, and why this simple ordering directive avoided it.
> As said I can not reproduce it myself... Oleksandr, can you give more
> Possibly everything from journal regarding systemd-udevd.service (and
> systemd-udevd.socket) and lvm2-pvscan@*.service could help.
> > 1. How had the offending pvscan process been started? I'd expect
> > that
> > "pvscan" (unlike "lvm monitor" in our case) was started by an udev
> > rule. If udevd hadn't started yet, how would that udev rule have be
> > executed? OTOH, if pvscan had not been started by udev but by
> > another
> > systemd service, than *that* service would probably need to get the
> > After=systemd-udevd.service directive.
> To my understanding it was started from udevd by a rule in
> (BTW, renaming that rule file may make sense now that lvm2-metad is
> > 2. Even without the "After=" directive, I'd assume that pvscan
> > wasn't
> > started "before" systemd-udevd, but rather "simultaneously" (i.e.
> > in
> > the same systemd transaction). Thus systemd-udevd should have
> > started
> > up while pvscan was running, and pvscan should have noticed that
> > udevd
> > eventually became available. Why did pvscan time out? What was it
> > waiting for? We know that lvm checks for the existence of
> > "/run/udev/control", but that should have become avaiable after
> > some
> > fractions of a second of waiting.
> I do not think there is anything starting pvscan before udevd.
I agree. The race described above looks at least possible.
I would go one step further and say that *every* systemd service that
might be started from an udev rule should have an "After=systemd-
linux-lvm mailing list
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-17 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-11 11:16 [linux-lvm] [PATCH 1/1] pvscan: wait for udevd Christian Hesse
[not found] ` <email@example.com>
2021-02-17 8:22 ` Martin Wilck
[not found] ` <20210217130329.7de41147@leda>
2021-02-17 13:38 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2021-02-18 15:19 ` Martin Wilck
2021-02-18 15:30 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2021-02-19 9:22 ` Martin Wilck
2021-02-19 16:37 ` David Teigland
2021-02-19 22:47 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-02-21 20:23 ` Martin Wilck
2021-02-22 9:57 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-02-22 13:04 ` Christian Hesse
2021-02-25 16:51 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2021-02-21 20:26 ` Martin Wilck
2021-02-17 13:49 ` Martin Wilck [this message]
2021-02-17 19:11 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).