Bug #6254
ceph_test_rados: rollback then delete gets ENOENT
0%
Description
ubuntu@teuthology:/a/teuthology-2013-09-07_01:00:04-rados-next-testing-basic-plana/24495
ubuntu@teuthology:/a/teuthology-2013-09-07_01:00:04-rados-next-testing-basic-plana/24289
Associated revisions
ceph_test_rados: fix snap remove vs rollback fix
In commit 55d279b98553ba4542219b126fc7159b20b18b1f we tried to fix a race
between rollback and snap removal, but got the logic wrong: we need to
prevent snap removal on in-use snaps, not prevent multiple rollbacks on
the same snap.
Fixes: #6254 (again)
Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Samuel Just <sam.just@inktank.com>
History
#1 Updated by Ian Colle over 10 years ago
- Assignee set to Sage Weil
#2 Updated by Sage Weil over 10 years ago
- Status changed from New to In Progress
#3 Updated by Sage Weil over 10 years ago
ubuntu@teuthology:/a/teuthology-2013-10-02_23:00:03-rados-master-testing-basic-plana/31098
#4 Updated by Sage Weil over 10 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to 4
aha:
... 2013-10-03T00:14:03.931 INFO:teuthology.task.rados.rados.0.out:[10.214.132.27]: 3481: rollback oid 45 to 426 2013-10-03T00:14:03.931 INFO:teuthology.task.rados.rados.0.out:[10.214.132.27]: 3482: snap_remove snap 426 ...
the model should avoid this situation.
BUT the osd behavior here is also confusing: if you say "rollback to snap X" and snap X does not exist, it deletes the object. wouldn't it make more sense to return -EINVAL?
#5 Updated by Sage Weil over 10 years ago
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/689 for the model fix
#6 Updated by Sage Weil over 10 years ago
- Status changed from 4 to Fix Under Review
Sage Weil wrote:
BUT the osd behavior here is also confusing: if you say "rollback to snap X" and snap X does not exist, it deletes the object. wouldn't it make more sense to return -EINVAL?
Nevermind. The snapset/snapc on the object may not be recent, so we don't necessarily know if the rollback snapid ever existed or not. We could explicitly check for deleted snaps, but I don't think it is worth it. Especially if we ever want rearchitect the way snap cleanup works it could box us in.
#7 Updated by Sage Weil over 10 years ago
- Assignee changed from Sage Weil to Samuel Just
#8 Updated by Sage Weil over 10 years ago
- Status changed from Fix Under Review to Resolved