On 05/17/22 09:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 07:54:01AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/16/22 17:46, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> These devices can be left around by either grub2 or the osprober tool.
>> They are read-only mirrors of existing filesystems and it appears we
>> can safely ignore them.
>>
>> Fixes:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2003503
>> ---
>> convert/convert.ml | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/convert/convert.ml b/convert/convert.ml
>> index 87fca7252b..997f6b08bd 100644
>> --- a/convert/convert.ml
>> +++ b/convert/convert.ml
>> @@ -194,10 +194,16 @@ and do_fstrim g inspect =
>> (* Get all filesystems. *)
>> let fses = g#list_filesystems () in
>>
>> + (* Ignore unknown/swap devices. *)
>> let fses = List.filter_map (
>> function (_, ("unknown"|"swap")) -> None | (dev, _)
-> Some dev
>> ) fses in
>>
>> + (* Ignore filesystems left around by osprober (RHBZ#2003503). *)
>> + let fses =
>> + List.filter (fun dev -> not (String.is_prefix dev
"/dev/mapper/osprober-"))
>> + fses in
>> +
>> (* Trim the filesystems. *)
>> List.iter (
>> fun dev ->
>>
>
> I've read up on os-prober:
>
>
https://www.thegeekdiary.com/how-to-disable-os-prober-in-centos-rhel-7/
>
https://github.com/campadrenalin/os-prober
>
http://joeyh.name/code/os-prober/
>
> and it's *absolutely infuriating* that os-prober itself, or whatever
> invokes os-prober, litters the system with block device nodes. In fact,
> I don't even know how it is *possible* for a device node to be left
> around under /dev/mapper -- I thought /dev/mapper/ would be re-populated
> *from zero* every time the system boots? Do we have something in the
> appliance perhaps that *creates* these files?
As part of conversion we run “/sbin/grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg”
which runs osprober and that leaves the block devices around. Later
in conversion we list out all filesystems (ie. g#list_filesystems) and
try to trim these, which is what was giving the warnings.
This is only a workaround for the original bug which seems to be in
grub/osprober.
> I'm quite unhappy about ignoring these filesystems in "do_fstrim"
> *only*. If guestfs_list_filesystems() returns them in the first place,
> won't that cause confusion for other libguestfs applications or scripts?
Quite possibly, but I was fixing the smallest possible thing to make
the bug go away.
> Do we expect the same filesystem to appear multiply in the
> list-filesystems output?
During conversion, list_filesystems output is [tidied up]:
list_filesystems = [
"/dev/mapper/osprober-linux-rhel_bootp--73--199--22-root", "xfs";
"/dev/mapper/osprober-linux-sda1", "xfs";
"/dev/sda1", "xfs";
"/dev/sda3", "xfs";
"/dev/rhel_bootp-73-199-22/root", "xfs";
"/dev/rhel_bootp-73-199-22/swap", "swap";
"/dev/rhel_bootp-73-199-6/root", "xfs";
"/dev/rhel_bootp-73-199-6/swap", "swap"
]
(/dev/mapper/osprober-linux-sda1 & /dev/sda1), and
(/dev/mapper/osprober-linux-rhel_bootp--73--199--22-root &
/dev/rhel_bootp-73-199-22/root)
are both duplicates.
It would be quite hard to deduplicate these however (unless you know
some trick), since the /dev/mapper/osprober-* devices are just
read-only device-mapper linear entries. There's nothing apart from
the name that easily connects them to the partitions and LVs that they
cover (particularly the LV).
I agree that we should not add complex logic here.
Do you think it's feasible to *move* the name-based filtering from
virt-v2v's do_fstrim to the libguestfs daemon's list-filesystems API
implementation? I can't see a reason why the list-filesystems API should
*ever* return these /dev/mapper/osprober-* nodes.
IOW all I'm proposing is that we move the same workaround deeper in the
stack.
Thanks!
Laszlo
> I think this is a serious bug in some component different from
> libguestfs / virt-v2v.
Without a doubt, it's a bug in grub2/osprober.
> Hmmm... After reading your comment
> <
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2003503#c12>, I think we
> absolutely need to report a bug for grub2. I'll contact the rhboot team.
>
> I don't disagree that we have to work it around, but until we understand
> the problem better, I don't feel safe about filtering these nodes out
> only in virt-v2v's trimming function.
Sure, I'll leave this one for now.
Rich.