From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Tue Feb 26 16:59:52 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27174151F055; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:59:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C6328DF59; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:59:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id x1QGxl0w046686; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:59:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id x1QGxkl0046685; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:59:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201902261659.x1QGxkl0046685@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: svn commit: r344569 - in head/cddl/contrib/opensolaris: cmd/zfs lib/libzfs/common In-Reply-To: To: Benjamin Kaduk Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:59:46 -0800 (PST) CC: Cy Schubert , Baptiste Daroussin , src-committers , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Reply-To: rgrimes@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6C6328DF59 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.98 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.979,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:59:52 -0000 > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:14 AM Cy Schubert > wrote: > > > On February 26, 2019 7:48:27 AM PST, Cy Schubert < > > Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: > > >On February 26, 2019 12:18:35 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin > > > wrote: > > > > [trimming the unneeded pile of commit body] > > > > >This broke my systems, many filesystems fail to mount causing nullfs > > >late mounts to fail. No details now until tonight. > > > > > >Suggest we back this out until it is properly tested. > > > > Nested zfs filesystems seem not to be handled properly or possibly not > > supported any more. This explains my mail gateway also not mounting all > > filesystems in /home. It was odd that dovecot stopped working. > > > > The symptom of the problem is zfs mount -a no longer mounts all > > filesystems. Zfs mount fails saying the filesystem is already mounted. The > > workaround is to zfs umount each affected zfs dataset by hand and zfs mount > > it by hand. > > > > Generally this has screwed up sites that have hundreds (in my case 122) > > zfs datasets. The work around might be to script testing each mount, > > unmounting and remounting if necessary. > > > > I'm being sarcastic about creating an rc script to clean this up. This > > needs to be backed out and tested properly before being committed. > > > > > I don't know what you mean by "nested zfs filesystems" -- do you mean a > zpool within a zvol? > That has been unsupported for a long time, IIRC. And That had better not be unsupported, that is the prefered technology for all of the virtualization stuff, bhyve, virtualbox, qemu, etc. I think by nested zfs it sounds like he is talking about datasets inside of other datasets just from reading "all filesystems in /home" > I'm not sure what else "nested filesystems" would be, since having (e.g.) > separate zfs filesystems for /usr and /usr/ports is so common that surely > it has already been tested... It might be when the intervening dataset is marked canmount=off? Though that should fail for the /usr /usr/foo case, as usr is normally marked this way. Maybe some other special case. > -Ben -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org