Bug 246226
| Summary: | mkinitrd does not include LVM tools if the rootfs is referenced by "LABEL=" in fstab | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Daniel Challen <daniel.challen> | ||||||||
| Component: | mkinitrd | Assignee: | Peter Jones <pjones> | ||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||||||
| Version: | 4.5 | CC: | jgranado, tao | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2008-09-24 13:09:05 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Daniel Challen
2007-06-29 11:58:11 UTC
Created attachment 158201 [details]
shell session illustrating the problem
I recognise that using FS labels in conjunction with LVM is a rare case (LVM having its own mechanisms (UUIDs) to handle the movement of physical disks to different symbolic names), and the problem is easily avoided. I can confirm this bug still exists in RHEL 4 ES U5. I ran into it last week;
specify root as "LABEL=/" in /etc/fstab; watch mkinitrd skip lvm-specific steps
like copying {lvm.static, lvm.conf} and including more than only the dm-mod
module. It seems to me that bugs #209473, #214184, #214184, #294051, #327181 and
#426671 are related to this (not sure if they're strictly dupes).
(In reply to comment #3) > I can confirm this bug still exists in RHEL 4 ES U5. I ran into it last week; > specify root as "LABEL=/" in /etc/fstab; watch mkinitrd skip lvm-specific steps > like copying {lvm.static, lvm.conf} and including more than only the dm-mod > module. It seems to me that bugs #209473, #214184, #214184, #294051, #327181 and > #426671 are related to this (not sure if they're strictly dupes). > Oops, also #212124. I did this write-up mainly because after a little digging it looks like the problem is fairly easy to fix -- making it all the more annoying that it exists at all -- you can demonstrate the pivotal behavior with 4 keystrokes on the end of mkinitrd line 913. ;-) *ahem* Attached is "mkinitrd.bugzilla_246226.tar.gz", containing: -rw-r----- 1 root root 1125 May 14 21:12 fstab.rootdev-by-DEVICE -rw-r----- 1 root root 1125 May 14 21:11 fstab.rootdev-by-LABEL -rw-r----- 1 root root 2497 May 15 01:23 mkininrd.issue.txt -rw-r----- 1 root root 2615 May 14 23:29 mkinitrd.diff-c -rwxr----- 1 root root 39109 May 15 01:33 mkinitrd.new -rwx------ 1 root root 325 May 14 23:29 run ... two fstabs for use with mkinitrd --fstab, one with a tranditional root device and one with a LABEL= device, plus the writeup txt, a 'diff -c' showing what's different between the stock mkinitrd and mkinitrd.new, plus a 'run' script to demonstrate more easily what's happenning. Created attachment 305443 [details]
tarfile with writeup txt, example fstabs, modified mkinitrd, diffs
Support ticket 1827712 created for this issue; this problem breaks our backup/restore and disaster recovery procedure, which is much harder to modify than a shell script (read: I suspect the fix is a minor patch to the mkinitrd script itself). Created attachment 306381 [details]
patch for /sbin/mkinitrd
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. Development Management has reviewed and declined this request. You may appeal this decision by reopening this request. |