Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

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.

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #906016 +++

Currently, luci is too liberate in terms of what configuration can be
achieved using it.

This bugs is to closely examine the semantically correct relationship
between fence and unfence per-node configuration, specifically
the requirement to have unfence section configured whenever particular
fence agent is referenced.

Applying this view, three categories seem to exist, very rough estimatation
of which follows:


1/ unfence is mandatory (sane to have it configured)

   - sanlock
   - sanbox2, ifmib, cisco_mds (?)


2/ unfence is optional

   - ?

3/ unfence does not make sense

   - ?


When the exact situation is mapped, the result of this RFE will be
less space for semantically incorrect configuration as the correct
relationship between fence and unfence per-node configuration will
be enforced.

update to 1/:

- sanlock, scsi (with these, unfence is actually enforced as a part
  of [bug 877098] fix)
- sanbox2, ifmib, cisco_mds (?)

As per Marek:

- warning:
  - fabric fencing within fence block, but not within respective
    unfence block (per node)

Note this complements the property examined in [bug 907470]
(see fabric switches).