[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#409435: linux-image-2.6.18-4-amd64: old version of libdevmapper1.02 installed == eat filesystem on pvmove



Package: linux-image-2.6.18-4-amd64
Version: 2.6.18.dfsg.1-9
Severity: critical
Justification: causes serious data loss


I just upgraded to 2.6.18.4 and tried pvmove /dev/hdc1 /dev/sda1

Result (dmesg):

   device-mapper: mirror log: unrecognised sync argument to mirror log: 2
   device-mapper: table: 254:3: mirror: Error creating mirror dirty log
   device-mapper: ioctl: error adding target to table
   device-mapper: mirror log: unrecognised sync argument to mirror log: 2
   device-mapper: table: 254:3: mirror: Error creating mirror dirty log
   device-mapper: ioctl: error adding target to table
   device-mapper: table: device 254:3 too small for target
   device-mapper: table: 254:1: linear: dm-linear: Device lookup failed
   device-mapper: ioctl: error adding target to table

and the volume was inaccessible. after a pvmove --abort, the whole system
hang.

after reboot, the files and whole directories were missing, the filesystem
was corrupted.

After some digging around, this seems to have been reported
some time ago and seems to be caused by an old version of
libdevmapper1.02 (#383418). Unfortunately, the bug was closed.

indeed, upgrading it made pvmove seemingly work (neither upgrading dmsetup
nor lvm2 upgrades this library to the required version). I think I had
1.02.06-1 and upgraded to 1.02.12-1.

Please, I urge you, add an antidependency to the kernel against old and
incompatible versions of libdevmapper. This problem is *severe*, causes
serious data loss, is a known issue, and is so easily avoidable and so
hard to diagnose.

Thanks a lot!

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17.6
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)



Reply to: