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the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.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.
Description of problem:
If the user tries to run "vdo growPhysical" on a VDO volume without having increased the size of the backing device, they will receive a message stating "message ioctl on <volume> failed: Invalid argument", without a helpful kernel log message regarding the reason why the growPhysical attempt failed (i.e.: the requested physical block count did not increase).
I think the reduced number of messages in /var/log/messages is caused by fix in BZ 1576539.
The rest being asked in this BZ is already being asked in BZ 1512134 (exposing the messages), except here we have 0 growth and in BZ 1512134 it is growth too small.
Matthew is it the fix the same for this BZ and BZ 1512134 (so we should close this a dup) or is it different?
Jakub, I think you are correct that is a side-effect of the way we fixed BZ 1576539.
BZ 1512134 is about exposing the error message through the user management script instead of only through log messages. This BZ is about having sufficient information in the log messages. So, I believe they are different and I will fix this one shortly.
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.
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:3094