Bug 1498527
Summary: | Disk partition doesn't allow 4 primary partitions on MSDOS disk layou | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Robinson <pbrobinson> | ||||||||||||
Component: | python-blivet | Assignee: | Blivet Maintenance Team <blivet-maint-list> | ||||||||||||
Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||||||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||||||||||
Priority: | urgent | ||||||||||||||
Version: | 27 | CC: | anaconda-maint-list, blivet-maint-list, dlehman, jkonecny, jonathan, kellin, mkolman, pbrobinson, pjones, pwhalen, rvykydal, sbueno, vanmeeuwen+fedora, vponcova, vtrefny, wwoods | ||||||||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened | ||||||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||||||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||||||
Last Closed: | 2018-11-30 21:47:12 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: | |||||||||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 245418 | ||||||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Peter Robinson
2017-10-04 14:17:52 UTC
Hello Peter, Thank you for filing this bug here. As I see it, this limitation is based on our storage library so I'm changing components here. Please attach the logs and/or exact error messages so we can see exactly what is happening. There is nothing in blivet to prevent creation of four primary partitions on an msdos disklabel. I verified it yesterday. Using: zerombr clearpart --all --initlabel --disklabel=msdos part /boot/efi --size=50 --fstype vfat --asprimary part /boot --size=512 --fstype ext4 --asprimary --active part swap --size=512 --fstype swap --asprimary part / --size=3900 --fstype ext4 --asprimary This now creates 4 partitions, but swap is created last. For disk images this prevents resizing the root partition. Created attachment 1416916 [details]
storage log
Created attachment 1416917 [details]
program log
Created attachment 1416918 [details]
packaging log
Created attachment 1416919 [details]
anaconda log
Created attachment 1416920 [details]
syslog
It is not possible to directly control the ordering of partitions using kickstart. If you require that level of control you should create the partitions in %pre and use --onpart in the part commands. David: why does it work in ARMv7 then? Is it because of the weighting in blivet here: https://github.com/storaged-project/blivet/blob/master/blivet/devices/partition.py#L421 Yes, weight is how we control the ordering there. To my knowledge weight is not exposed via kickstart, but it's been a while since I paid close attention to kickstart. (In reply to David Lehman from comment #11) > Yes, weight is how we control the ordering there. To my knowledge weight is > not exposed via kickstart, but it's been a while since I paid close > attention to kickstart. It works fine for the ARMv7 disk images, hence the reason this ticket was originally opened. I just took another look at this and I've arrived at the conclusion that your expectations here were probably quite reasonable. It seems that the missing piece is the fact that blivet.arch.is_arm() returns False on aarch64. This is probably related to word size, which is fine, but it means that, with the current code, aarch64 won't get root at the end of the disk. I think this will require some way to differentiate between aarch64 appliances/images and servers. Once that is in place we can add code to properly weight the root fs on aarch64 images. Any suggestions for differentiating between aarch64 embedded/images and servers? > aarch64. This is probably related to word size, which is fine, but it means > that, with the current code, aarch64 won't get root at the end of the disk. It's checking for a string with "arm_machine.startswith('arm')" which on arm64 is 'aarch64' so it would fail. > I think this will require some way to differentiate between aarch64 > appliances/images and servers. Once that is in place we can add code to > properly weight the root fs on aarch64 images. Any suggestions for > differentiating between aarch64 embedded/images and servers? Why is there a need to differentiate? (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #14) > > aarch64. This is probably related to word size, which is fine, but it means > > that, with the current code, aarch64 won't get root at the end of the disk. > > It's checking for a string with "arm_machine.startswith('arm')" which on > arm64 is 'aarch64' so it would fail. Right. We probably don't want to change that, but we can expand the conditions under which we set the weight for the root fs to also include systems on which arch.is_aarch64() returns True. > > > I think this will require some way to differentiate between aarch64 > > appliances/images and servers. Once that is in place we can add code to > > properly weight the root fs on aarch64 images. Any suggestions for > > differentiating between aarch64 embedded/images and servers? > > Why is there a need to differentiate? Will the servers also need the root fs to be at the end of the disk? This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life. On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '27'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 27 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 27 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-11-30. Fedora 27 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |