Bug 1298932 - lvm_vg_is_* do not return correct values
lvm_vg_is_* do not return correct values
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: lvm2 (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Peter Rajnoha
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2016-01-15 07:34 EST by dfabian
Modified: 2016-05-10 21:20 EDT (History)
10 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: lvm2-2.02.140-1.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-05-10 21:20:23 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description dfabian 2016-01-15 07:34:53 EST
Description of problem:
The documentation in lvm2app.h specifies that lvm_vg_is_clustered() returns 1 if VG is clustered and 0 otherwise. However, the function returns 1024 if VG is clustered. This is because the macro vg_is_clustered in metadata-exported.h is set to

#define vg_is_clustered(vg) (vg_status((vg)) & CLUSTERED)

instead of

#define vg_is_clustered(vg) ((vg_status((vg)) & CLUSTERED) ? 1 : 0)

like in the case of for instance lv_is_locked

Other vg_is_* macros exhibit the similar issue.

The incorrect return value breaks the python wrapper as it does

rval = ( lvm_vg_is_clustered(self->vg) == 1) ? Py_True : Py_False;

which always returns Py_False regardless of the VG state.

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
Build and run thic C program
#include <lvm2app.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int args, char**argv)
    lvm_t libh;
    vg_t vg = NULL;
    libh = lvm_init(NULL);
    vg = lvm_vg_open(libh, <clustered_vg_name>, "r", 0);
    printf("ret: %lu\n", lvm_vg_is_clustered(vg));
    return 0;

The program returns "ret: 1024".

Actual results:

Expected results:
lvm_vg_is_clustered() and others should return 1 if the specific flag is set in the VG.

Additional info:
Comment 2 Peter Rajnoha 2016-01-15 08:15:30 EST
Nice catch! We'll certainly fix this, thanks for the report.
Comment 6 Roman Bednář 2016-03-03 05:09:34 EST
Verified as SanityOnly. No new issues observed during regression testing.
Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2016-05-10 21:20:23 EDT
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.


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