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.

Marius, can you please have a look at this?

This is a known problem with the error messages produced by mkfs.xfs.

The name "lv-filesystem" is too long by one character.  If you read the error message carefully, you can see that it does indeed tell you:

    ...
    Invalid value lv-filesystem for -L option
    ...
    /* label */ [-L label (maximum 12 characters)]
    ...

I have long hemmed and hawed about this.  Should we code all the rules for valid names for all filesystem types into Cockpit?  Should mkfs.xfs produce useful error messages?

I guess it's "all of the above".  I'll make backlog item for Cockpit to do explicit pre-validation of filesystem labels.

Proposed fix: https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit/pull/10754

> The "Overwrite existing data with zeros" option works fine.

This option shouldn't make any difference, and I could reproduce the error message with both "Overwrite existing data with zeros" and "Don't overwrite existing data".  The only thing that matters is the length of the "Name" field.

Can you confirm?

https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit/pull/10754