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.
Bug 1016131 - udev doesn't update ID_FS_TYPE of MD RAID members
Summary: udev doesn't update ID_FS_TYPE of MD RAID members
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: mdadm
Version: 7.0
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: 7.3
Assignee: Jes Sorensen
QA Contact: Storage QE
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 947815
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-10-07 14:58 UTC by Jan Safranek
Modified: 2016-01-29 11:26 UTC (History)
14 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 947815
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-01-22 19:55:54 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jan Safranek 2013-10-07 14:58:23 UTC
Reproducible on recent RHEL7.

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #947815 +++

(discussed with Kay and Harald on IRC, Harald can reproduce it)

After mdadm -C ..., udev sometimes doesn't show 'ID_FS_TYPE = linux_raid_member' for a member device of the new RAID.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
systemd-199-1.fc20.x86_64
kernel-3.9.0-0.rc4.git0.1.fc20.x86_64

How reproducible:
~ 10%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. run this loop:

for i in $(seq 100); do
    echo ---------------;
    mdadm -S /dev/md0;
    wipefs -a /dev/sdb1;
    wipefs -a /dev/sdb2;
    udevadm settle;
    udevadm info /dev/sdb1 | grep ID_FS_TYPE;
    mdadm -C --force -l 0 -n 2 /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdb2;
    udevadm settle;
    udevadm info /dev/sdb1 | grep ID_FS_TYPE;
done | tee log

2. grep ID_FS_TYPE log | wc -l
  
Actual results:
less than 100 'ID_FS_TYPE' strings found in the log

Expected results:
exactly 100 'ID_FS_TYPE' strings found in the log

Additional info:
It is reproducible only with two devices on one disk, i.e. sdb1 and sdb2. With two different disks, e.g. sda1 and sdb1, it works well.

Also, when 'udevadm info /dev/sdb1' doesn't show ID_FS_TYPE, it is still *not* updated after ~1 minute or 'udevadm settle'. Only 'udevadm trigger' helps.
(This indicates that something did not generate some event, but I really don't know udev or kernel internals).

--- Additional comment from Harald Hoyer on 2013-04-08 16:17:10 EDT ---

With the patched mdadm, I am not able to hit the bug.

--- Additional comment from Jes Sorensen on 2013-04-11 09:35:38 EDT ---

Slightly modified patch posted upstream - lets see what the maintainer says
to it.

Comment 1 Jan Safranek 2013-10-07 14:59:24 UTC
see the Fedora bug for attachments

Comment 3 Jes Sorensen 2013-10-07 15:17:03 UTC
There was a discussion upstream, see

Message-ID: <20130429105720.593fe99b>

The conclusion was pretty much NO

Comment 9 Jes Sorensen 2016-01-22 19:48:21 UTC
Per comment #3, upstream didn't want to take this path - this is not going
to change.

Comment 10 RHEL Program Management 2016-01-22 19:55:54 UTC
Development Management has reviewed and declined this request.
You may appeal this decision by reopening this request.

Comment 11 Harald Hoyer 2016-01-29 11:26:01 UTC
hmm.. I don't see rejection from upstream, only questions and me ranting

Comment 12 Harald Hoyer 2016-01-29 11:26:55 UTC
Are you sure you want customers in RHEL-7 in this state?


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.