advice needed for gentoo bug involving lvm2/udev
All,
we have the following bug posted in gentoo's bugzilla:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365227.
The reporter is telling me that we should use --action=change instead of --action=add in the cold boot sequence when dev is devtmpfs. However, this doesn't seem to be the correct fix based on earlier discussions on this list.
Does anyone else have any suggestions for fixing this? My thought is that the rules for lvm2 should be fixed. What does everyone else think?
William
Quoted 11 lines · William Hubbs
we have the following bug posted in gentoo's bugzilla:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id65227.
The reporter is telling me that we should use --action=change instead of --actiond in the cold boot sequence when dev is devtmpfs. However, this doesn't seem to be the correct fix based on earlier discussions on this list.
Does anyone else have any suggestions for fixing this? My thought is that the rules for lvm2 should be fixed. What does everyone else think?
--actiond is still the recommended and default way of doing coldplug.
It should only be done once after udevd is started though, and never again. All later triggers should be change only.
Devtmpfs does not really matter here, it's the replay of the missed events, which should be add and not change.
Kay
Quoted 10 lines · Kay Sievers
Quoted 9 lines · William Hubbs
we have the following bug posted in gentoo's bugzilla:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365227.
The reporter is telling me that we should use --action=change instead of --action=add in the cold boot sequence when dev is devtmpfs. However, this doesn't seem to be the correct fix based on earlier discussions on this list.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Does anyone else have any suggestions for fixing this? My thought is that the rules for lvm2 should be fixed. What does everyone else think?
--action=add is still the recommended and default way of doing coldplug.
It should only be done once after udevd is started though, and never again. All later triggers should be change only.
The reporter is now saying that --action=add does not touch nodes that are already in the file system, so, for example, if you mount devtmpfs on /dev then call udevadm trigger --action=add, the permissions, ownership, etc, of nodes that already exist are not touched. So, he is suggesting that we add another udevadm trigger call with --action=change to the cold boot sequence.
Is this a bug in udev, or should we add this extra udevadm trigger call?
William
Quoted 19 lines · William Hubbs
Quoted 10 lines · Kay Sievers
Quoted 9 lines · William Hubbs
we have the following bug posted in gentoo's bugzilla:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365227.
The reporter is telling me that we should use --action=change instead of --action=add in the cold boot sequence when dev is devtmpfs. However, this doesn't seem to be the correct fix based on earlier discussions on this list.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Does anyone else have any suggestions for fixing this? My thought is that the rules for lvm2 should be fixed. What does everyone else think?
--action=add is still the recommended and default way of doing coldplug.
It should only be done once after udevd is started though, and never again. All later triggers should be change only.
Quoted 8 lines
The reporter is now saying that --action=add does not touch nodes that are already in the file system, so, for example, if you mount devtmpfs on /dev then call udevadm trigger --action=add, the permissions, ownership, etc, of nodes that already exist are not touched. So, he is suggesting that we add another udevadm trigger call with --action=change to the cold boot sequence.
Is this a bug in udev, or should we add this extra udevadm trigger call?
Hi Kay,
I am re-sending this in case you didn't get it before.
Basically, the reporter is now saying that the udevadm trigger --action=add is correct, but that the coldplug sequence should include udevadm trigger --action=change after the --action=add call.
Is this correct?
Thanks,
William
Quoted 31 lines · William Hubbs
Quoted 19 lines · William Hubbs
Quoted 10 lines · Kay Sievers
Quoted 9 lines · William Hubbs
we have the following bug posted in gentoo's bugzilla:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id65227.
The reporter is telling me that we should use --action=change instead of --actiond in the cold boot sequence when dev is devtmpfs. However, this doesn't seem to be the correct fix based on earlier discussions on this list.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Does anyone else have any suggestions for fixing this? My thought is that the rules for lvm2 should be fixed. What does everyone else think?
--actiond is still the recommended and default way of doing coldplug.
It should only be done once after udevd is started though, and never again. All later triggers should be change only.
Quoted 8 lines
The reporter is now saying that --actiond does not touch nodes that are already in the file system, so, for example, if you mount devtmpfs on /dev then call udevadm trigger --actiond, the permissions, ownership, etc, of nodes that already exist are not touched. So, he is suggesting that we add another udevadm trigger call with --action=change to the cold boot sequence.
Is this a bug in udev, or should we add this extra udevadm trigger call?
Hi Kay,
Quoted 7 lines
I am re-sending this in case you didn't get it before.
Basically, the reporter is now saying that the udevadm trigger --actiond is correct, but that the coldplug sequence should include udevadm trigger --action=change after the --actiond call.
Is this correct?
No, udev should not trigger any 'change' event during bootup, it should only trigger 'add' events once and very early during bootup.
Any other issues need to be fixed by/in the tools, not hacked around in udev.
Kay