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 1894651 - storage: omitted parameters on existing pool/volume is interpreted as "use the default"
Summary: storage: omitted parameters on existing pool/volume is interpreted as "use th...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rhel-system-roles
Version: 8.3
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: 8.0
Assignee: Pavel Cahyna
QA Contact: Lin Li
URL:
Whiteboard: role:storage
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-11-04 17:13 UTC by David Lehman
Modified: 2022-08-02 18:09 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rhel-system-roles-1.0.0-28.el8
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-05-18 16:02:34 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
pm-rhel: mirror+

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Github linux-system-roles storage issues 48 0 None open If an option is omitted on existing volume, it gets reset to the default. 2021-02-16 15:36:11 UTC
Github linux-system-roles storage pull 59 0 None closed Missing parameters 2021-02-16 15:36:12 UTC

Description David Lehman 2020-11-04 17:13:47 UTC 
Description of problem:
When some parameters are omitted in the specification of a pool/volume that already exists on disk, the pool/volume will be modified to reflect the role's default for those settings. Most users will not expect this.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. create a pool or volume with any non-role-default setting
2. run the role w/o specifying the parameter corresponding to that setting


Actual results:
The pool/volume will have been modified to the role default for the omitted setting.

Expected results:
For existing pool/volume, omitted parameter should be interpreted as "leave that setting as it is".

Additional info:
For a non-existing pool/volume, it should be interpreted as "use the default".
Comment 1 Lin Li 2021-01-13 08:01:42 UTC 
Hi Pavel,
I designed 4 cases for the bug. Is it enough? Is my understanding correct? If yes, I will set ITM to 16, is it ok?
Thanks!
case 1:
1, create a pool which is an existing pool with any non-role-default setting
2, run the role w/o specifying the parameter corresponding to that setting
3, omitted parameter should be interpreted as "leave that setting as it is"

case 2:
1, create a volume which is an existing volume with any non-role-default setting
2, run the role w/o specifying the parameter corresponding to that setting
3, omitted parameter should be interpreted as "leave that setting as it is"

case 3:
1, create a pool which is a non-existing pool with any non-role-default setting
2, run the role w/o specifying the parameter corresponding to that setting
3, it should be interpreted as "use the default"

case 4:
1, create a volume which is a non-existing pool with any non-role-default setting
2, run the role w/o specifying the parameter corresponding to that setting
3, it should be interpreted as "use the default"
Comment 2 Lin Li 2021-01-14 13:46:53 UTC 
I will set ITM to 14 if 16 is too late.
Comment 3 David Lehman 2021-01-26 13:25:59 UTC 
The proposed cases look good to me. There are several in the upstream pull request along the same lines.
Comment 4 Lin Li 2021-02-03 02:18:51 UTC 
Hi David,
Could you tell me when the patch is ready? I change ITM to 16. Is it ok?
Comment 6 Lin Li 2021-02-16 14:47:24 UTC 
Hi David,
I remember you said that there is a playbook for this bug. May I ask which palybook can verify this bug? 
Thanks!
Comment 7 David Lehman 2021-02-16 16:14:35 UTC 
The verification is spread across several playbooks:

  tests_change_fs.yml
  tests_create_disk_then_remove.yml
  tests_create_partition_volume_then_remove.yml
  tests_luks.yml
  tests_luks_pool.yml
  tests_raid_pool_options.yml
  tests_raid_volume_options.yml
 
Each has roughly one test to verify that the role preserves non-default settings on pre-existing pools and volumes. To identify the specific tests you can view the patch:

  https://github.com/linux-system-roles/storage/pull/59/files


If it will help I can create a new/separate playbook that implements the suggested test battery from comment 1.
Comment 8 Lin Li 2021-02-16 16:53:22 UTC 
Thanks David!
I am running these playbooks. I will update test result after I finish my testing.
Comment 29 errata-xmlrpc 2021-05-18 16:02:34 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 (rhel-system-roles 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/RHEA-2021:1909
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.