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 1826251 - remove MD metadata 0.90 based tests from util-linux CI
Summary: remove MD metadata 0.90 based tests from util-linux CI
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: util-linux
Version: 8.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: 8.3
Assignee: Karel Zak
QA Contact: Radka Brychtova
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-04-21 10:22 UTC by Karel Zak
Modified: 2020-11-04 02:10 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: util-linux-2.32.1-23.el8
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-04 02:06:13 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2020:4575 0 None None None 2020-11-04 02:06:27 UTC

Description Karel Zak 2020-04-21 10:22:41 UTC 
Description of problem:

It seems mdadm on RHEL-8 does not support metadata 0.90 anymore. Is it expected?

We have --metadata=0.90 in util-linux regression tests and it works for old versions and on the current Fedora.

# mdadm --create /dev/md8 --metadata=0.90 --chunk=64 --level=0 --raid-devices=2 /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1
mdadm: 0.90 metadata does not support layouts for RAID0

# mdadm -V
mdadm - v4.1 - 2018-10-01

# uname -r
4.18.0-193.8.el8.x86_64

# lsblk
NAME   MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
loop0    7:0    0  50M  0 loop 
loop1    7:1    0  50M  0 loop 
vda    253:0    0  20G  0 disk 
└─vda1 253:1    0  20G  0 part /

# losetup
NAME       SIZELIMIT OFFSET AUTOCLEAR RO BACK-FILE                                                               DIO LOG-SEC
/dev/loop1         0      0         0  0 /root/util-linux-2.32.1.35-60f97/tests/output/blkid/md-raid0-whole2.img   0     512
/dev/loop0         0      0         0  0 /root/util-linux-2.32.1.35-60f97/tests/output/blkid/md-raid0-whole1.img   0     512


If this change is expected than I'll disable the test for RHEL-8, but I'd like to be sure this is not a mdadm regression. Thanks!

It's easy to reproduce on "1minutetip rhel8".
Comment 1 Nigel Croxon 2020-04-21 13:31:03 UTC 
To answer your question: It seems mdadm on RHEL-8 does not support metadata 0.90 anymore. Is it expected?

We have NOT drop support for metadata 0.90.

Can you do an "rpm -qa |grep mdadm". And share the output?



# mdadm --create /dev/md8 --metadata=0.90 --chunk=64 --level=0 --raid-devices=2 /dev/nvme2n1 /dev/nvme3n1
mdadm: array /dev/md8 started.

[root@localhost ncroxon]# mdadm -D /dev/md8
/dev/md8:
           Version : 0.90
     Creation Time : Tue Apr 21 09:26:44 2020
        Raid Level : raid0
        Array Size : 1000215040 (953.88 GiB 1024.22 GB)
      Raid Devices : 2
     Total Devices : 2
   Preferred Minor : 8
       Persistence : Superblock is persistent

       Update Time : Tue Apr 21 09:26:44 2020
             State : clean 
    Active Devices : 2
   Working Devices : 2
    Failed Devices : 0
     Spare Devices : 0

        Chunk Size : 64K

Consistency Policy : none

              UUID : 69798448:6a8475f6:bfe78010:bc810f04 (local to host localhost.localdomain)
            Events : 0.1

    Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
       0     259       10        0      active sync   /dev/nvme2n1
       1     259        9        1      active sync   /dev/nvme3n1
[root@localhost ncroxon]# 

#  rpm -qa|grep mdadm
mdadm-4.1-10.el8.x86_64
Comment 2 Nigel Croxon 2020-04-21 14:55:35 UTC 
I stand correct.  I need to check with my co-worker on the following patch:

https://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg63440.html

-Nigel
Comment 3 Nigel Croxon 2020-04-21 15:43:07 UTC 
I can confirm we have picked up the two patches which print the message you encountered.

-Create-add-support-for-RAID0-layouts.patch
Since Linux 5.4 a layout is needed for RAID0 arrays with varying device sizes.
This patch makes the layout of an array visible (via --examine) and sets the layout on newly created arrays.


-Assemble-add-support-for-RAID0-layouts.patch
If you have a RAID0 array with varying sized devices on a kernel before 5.4, you cannot assembling it on
5.4 or later without explicitly setting the layout.
Comment 4 XiaoNi 2020-04-24 11:20:55 UTC 
Hi Karel

I looked the codes. The answer is 0.9 metadata doesn't support raid0 from mdadm-4.1-12 any more.
So you can remove the case now. Close this bug.

Thanks
Xiao
Comment 5 XiaoNi 2020-04-25 01:44:21 UTC 
My comments are not accurate. It can't create new raid0 from mdadm-4.1-12. But if you have created
raid0, it can still assemble it. But it needs to specify default_layout=1 when modprobe raid0
Comment 6 Karel Zak 2020-04-29 09:33:40 UTC 
Thanks for your feedback.

I'll reopen it for util-linux to remove the test from CI tests.
Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2020-11-04 02:06:13 UTC 
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 (util-linux bug fix and enhancement update), 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-2020:4575
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.