What's missing from upstream Gluster 6 (and now RHGS 3.5) to move this to MODIFIED?
This does not require a doc text. The changes done are internal to the gluster process and not seen by the user directly. Still for the purpose of clarification, below is the changes made regarding this bug in the upstream patch https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/21996/ * Before the above mentioned patch, bit-rot-stub xlator which is part of the glusterfsd brick process was sending its internal extended attribute (bad file xattr, version, signature etc) in the list of xattrs for fops such as getxattr, listxattr, readdirp, lookup. Ideally, only bad-file xattr should be sent back to higher layer (if the xattr is present which means file has been marked as bad), that too only in lookup. Hence, apart from lookup, none of the other fops would send any of the internal bit-rot related xattrs to the higher layers. And even in lookup only bad file marker is sufficient. Higher layers should make any decisions based on that information (if at all needed).
Raghavendra, I see that there are 3 different issues reported in this bug: 1. Spurious metadata heal 2. Excessive heal specific logging. Neither RHHI-V nor RHV-RHGS ( non-hyperconverged ) supports bit-rot. With that in mind, can we qualify this patch with replica 3 + normal file workload ?
Satheesaran, The spurious metadata heal was caused because bit-rot specific xattrs were being sent to higher layers which caused AFR to trigger healing. The patch fixes that issue by not sending bit-rot specific xattrs in some calls (that it used to send before). So atleast from bit-rot perspective the issue is addressed. You can qualify this change for regular replica 3 + normal file workload.
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/RHEA-2019:3249