Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Descriptionnikhil kshirsagar
2019-07-09 07:33:03 UTC
Description of problem:
lvm should not allow mkfs.xfs or mounting a thinpool. This bz is created for possible approaches to avoid this. FS SBR feels that mkfs or mount is not the place to fix this. Perhaps we can avoid this by having private LV in a different /dev/private folder ?
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
lvm2-libs-2.02.180-10.el7_6.3.x86_64
lvm2-2.02.180-10.el7_6.3.x86_64
3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
[root@vm255-41 mt]# lvcreate -T -n testpool1 -L200M thin_vg
Thin pool volume with chunk size 64.00 KiB can address at most 15.81 TiB of data.
Logical volume "testpool1" created.
[root@vm255-41 mt]# mkfs.xfs /dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1
thin_vg-testpool1 thin_vg-testpool1_tdata thin_vg-testpool1_tmeta
[root@vm255-41 mt]# mkfs.xfs /dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1
thin_vg-testpool1 thin_vg-testpool1_tdata thin_vg-testpool1_tmeta
[root@vm255-41 mt]# mkfs.xfs /dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1
meta-data=/dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1 isize=512 agcount=8, agsize=6400 blks
= sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=1 finobt=0, sparse=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=51200, imaxpct=25
= sunit=16 swidth=16 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1
log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=768, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=16 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64
This bug is mostly opened against wrong component.
Bugs should be opened for mkfs and mount tools.
There are many good reasons why there is keept accessibility of these device for user-space tools like dd, hexdump... for close inspection by 'root'.
Yet tools like mkfs & mount should take extra step in validation eventually confirmation of proceeding with unsupported devices like multipath/raid leg and other basically protected devices.
It would be probably best to have one source of information about what is usable (be it udev/SID....)
There is nothing lvm2 can do about permission for device access for root - lvm2 purely maintains DM devices.
We already document only ONE SUPPORTED way for using LVs:
/dev/vgname/lvname
Whoever is using any other device paths like /dev/mapper, /dev/dm-XXXX is basically doing his own unsupportable work...
lvm2 makes sure - devices that are supposed to be used by users do have these correct symlinks.
Description of problem: lvm should not allow mkfs.xfs or mounting a thinpool. This bz is created for possible approaches to avoid this. FS SBR feels that mkfs or mount is not the place to fix this. Perhaps we can avoid this by having private LV in a different /dev/private folder ? Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): lvm2-libs-2.02.180-10.el7_6.3.x86_64 lvm2-2.02.180-10.el7_6.3.x86_64 3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: [root@vm255-41 mt]# lvcreate -T -n testpool1 -L200M thin_vg Thin pool volume with chunk size 64.00 KiB can address at most 15.81 TiB of data. Logical volume "testpool1" created. [root@vm255-41 mt]# mkfs.xfs /dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1 thin_vg-testpool1 thin_vg-testpool1_tdata thin_vg-testpool1_tmeta [root@vm255-41 mt]# mkfs.xfs /dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1 thin_vg-testpool1 thin_vg-testpool1_tdata thin_vg-testpool1_tmeta [root@vm255-41 mt]# mkfs.xfs /dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1 meta-data=/dev/mapper/thin_vg-testpool1 isize=512 agcount=8, agsize=6400 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 = crc=1 finobt=0, sparse=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=51200, imaxpct=25 = sunit=16 swidth=16 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=768, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=16 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64