Bug 1032635

Summary: pvremove of a PV on thin-volume fails thinking pool device is a PV too (with duplicate UUID as the real PV)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Marian Csontos <mcsontos>
Component: lvm2Assignee: Petr Rockai <prockai>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: agk, bmarzins, bmr, dwysocha, heinzm, jonathan, lvm-team, msnitzer, prajnoha, prockai, zkabelac
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: lvm2-2.02.106-1.fc21 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1064374 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-04-11 16:01:37 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1064374    

Description Marian Csontos 2013-11-20 14:06:23 UTC
Description of problem:
After creating PV on the first thin-LV in the pool, removing the PV fails as the pool itself has PV signature visible and is considered a PV by our tools.

This seems to be caused by recent cache removals.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
lvm2-2.02.105-0.151.el6.x86_64 - upstream lvm2.


How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. #create a pool vg/pool
2. #create a LV vg/lv in the pool.
3. pvcreate /dev/vg/lv
4. pvremove /dev/vg/lv

Actual results:
`pvremove /dev/vg/lv` fails with following message:

     Found duplicate PV 3rYjdZ2W5aTWcI9j1xaQfDK2fIRjC5e0: using /dev/vg/lv not /dev/mapper/vg-pool
     Found duplicate PV 3rYjdZ2W5aTWcI9j1xaQfDK2fIRjC5e0: using /dev/mapper/vg-pool not /dev/vg/lv
     Internal error: Physical Volume /dev/vg/lv has a label, but is neither in a VG nor orphan.  

Expected results:
pvremove should pass

Additional info:

Comment 1 Petr Rockai 2013-11-20 15:34:53 UTC
I reckon that this is something that filters should be taking care of. Thin pools shouldn't be scanned for PV labels.

Comment 2 Marian Csontos 2013-11-20 15:42:27 UTC
We are talking here about lvm consuming lvm devices, not some 3rd party. I really do not think user should have to check and modify filters after creating a pool and I am sure it is just my misunderstanding of what you wanted to say.