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

Bug#771301: Failure to set up md-RAID device backing /usr partition in initramfs



On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:51:48 +0000 Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 at 22:18:53 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I suspect this is essentially the same bug as #616689 and #678696,
> > except that now it may affect mounting /usr as well as /.
> 
> I think this bug report is actually describing more than one bug in more
> than one package that have similar symptoms. There might be things
> that can be fixed in mdadm and lvm2 to fix the initramfs-tools/0.117
> regressions without needing to implement a full event-driven setup in
> initramfs-tools.
> 
> ---- RAID (Elimar, Sven) ----
> 
> Elimar Riesebieter's "System 2" has a bunch of mdadm (RAID) partitions.
> 
> Elimar, what is in your /etc/default/mdadm on "System 2" (and "System 1"
> for that matter)? I predict that the answer includes something like
> "INITRDSTART=/dev/md6".
> 
> The problem here seems to be that mdadm tries to determine a minimal
> set of multi-disk partitions need to be assembled by the initramfs
> based on the assumption that the initramfs only needs the root device;
> but initramfs-tools >= 0.117 wants to mount /usr as well, so that
> assumption is no longer true.
> 
> So it might be necessary to modify mdadm so that, if /usr is a separate
> filesystem on (a LVM VG on) a MD array, it will try to prepare that too.
[...]

Given that there is an INITRDSTART setting to explicitly specify the
wanted devices, and that the default value of 'all' will continue to
work, I am inclined to document this problem in NEWS and release notes.

We could do a bit better by checking for this case at upgrade time and
showing a debconf error, or even better by offering to fix it.  I don't
think the problem is likely to be common enough to deserve that much
work.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: