Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 695389
Traceback when writing a kickstart for an unused lvm-on-raid (TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable)
Last modified: 2014-09-30 19:40:01 EDT
The following was filed automatically by anaconda:
anaconda 15.27 exception report
Traceback (most recent call first):
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/storage/formats/__init__.py", line 408, in majorminor
dev = udev_get_device(sysfs_path[4:])
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/storage/devices.py", line 1979, in writeKS
pvs.append("pv.%s" % pv.format.majorminor)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/storage/__init__.py", line 1186, in writeKS
device.writeKS(f, preexisting=preexisting, noformat=noformat)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/__init__.py", line 379, in writeKS
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/packages.py", line 67, in writeKSConfiguration
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/dispatch.py", line 211, in moveStep
rc = stepFunc(self.anaconda)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/dispatch.py", line 130, in gotoNext
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/gui.py", line 1257, in nextClicked
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/iw/progress_gui.py", line 79, in renderCallback
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyanaconda/gui.py", line 1278, in handleRenderCallback
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
Created attachment 491254 [details]
Attached traceback automatically from anaconda.
assigning this to me, I've seen similar issues.
This is reproducible by trying to install on a system where lvm-on-raid exists which we do not touch during partitioning. The raid gets torn down and get_sysfs_path_by_name() returns None as /sys/class/block/md0 does not exist.
can you please retest with this updates image?
Works fine. Normal end of install on LV over raid 10 with CD tray popping open...using the install now to report back to you. I'll leave open and let you close it when your changes show up.
Proposing as a release blocker, this is easy to hit during upgrades or when installing to an unused disk while leaving other disks intact.
Qualifies as a final release  blocker per the following criteria:
"The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above "
While this is a kickstart-based installation, it still qualifies per the spirit of the above criteria.
*** Bug 696904 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Discussed at the 2011-04-15 blocker review meeting. Accepted as a blocker as per jlaska's comment #7. Fix is in, waiting for a new anaconda build to confirm.
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
*** Bug 698249 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 493514 [details]
anaconda traceback when using bz695389.img
bz695389.img does not fix Bug 698249 for me. In fact, the updates image makes anaconda traceback a lot sooner.
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 493514 [details]
> anaconda traceback when using bz695389.img
> bz695389.img does not fix Bug 698249 for me. In fact, the updates image makes
> anaconda traceback a lot sooner.
Can you please attach the entire traceback file (it's named /tmp/anaconda-tb-*)?
I think you are hitting a dup of bug 677689 (cciss devices' sysfs paths are not constructed properly).
Can you please retest with http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/bz695389_patrick.img ?
(In reply to comment #15)
> I think you are hitting a dup of bug 677689 (cciss devices' sysfs paths are not
> constructed properly).
> Can you please retest with
> http://akozumpl.fedorapeople.org/bz695389_patrick.img ?
confirm, that updates image fixes Bug 698249 for me.
Will you adjust 698249 so that it is marked as DUP of the correct bug or do you want me to?
From 04/21 blocker meeting - clumens expects a new build to arrive later today.
> confirm, that updates image fixes Bug 698249 for me.
> Thank you!
> Will you adjust 698249 so that it is marked as DUP of the correct bug or do you
> want me to?
I think it is okay to keep it as it is, those bugs are anyway all closely related and due to recent changes we made to those parts of the code.
NOTE: I think the fix for this bug, introduces bug#699383
Comitted the fix for the problem from comment 14: cab0b376c390490cff2d0c378a490d3d5affec51.
anaconda-15-29.1 is now available in Fedora 15 'stable'.
Clyde, are you still seeing this issue? I'm guessing no since you were kind enough to add some bodhi karma to the update. But I'll leave the request outstanding for a bit before we close this issue.
No longer seeing.
(In reply to comment #22)
> No longer seeing.
Clyde you rock, thanks for the feedback :)