Skip to content

Conversation

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

In 4.12 (master) we'll be shipping with at least RHEL8.6's
rpm-ostree 2022.2 which ships the fixes for the two bugs we were
hacking around here.

In 4.12 (master) we'll be shipping with at least RHEL8.6's
rpm-ostree 2022.2 which ships the fixes for the two bugs we were
hacking around here.
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 7, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@yuqi-zhang yuqi-zhang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few notes:

  1. is there any way we can validate this via CI? Or is "rpm-ostree is running and we don't fail" good enough
  2. I think this might help with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104978? Is that race-y at all?

@@ -100,38 +100,7 @@ func (r *RpmOstreeClient) loadStatus() (*rpmOstreeState, error) {
}

func (r *RpmOstreeClient) Initialize() error {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, maybe it's worth removing Initialize() altogether then, since the non-rpmostree client doesn't use this either.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

is there any way we can validate this via CI? Or is "rpm-ostree is running and we don't fail" good enough

We did add a regression test to rpm-ostree for the original failure that motivated this. I'm reasonably confident in this change for 4.12.

I think this might help with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104978? Is that race-y at all?

Hmmmm. Ohh I see, yes this looks like when I hit this in rpm-ostree in coreos/rpm-ostree#3523 I forgot to go back and update this MCO side workaround.

So...fun. Probably what we should do is:

  • Add a PR that adds in the equivalent check into this code, land it
  • cherry pick to 4.11
  • Rebase this PR on top (which would delete the newly added check, which is redundant with what's in rpm-ostree core)
  • Land this PR only for 4.12 (rhel 8.6+)

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

What's fun here is systemd got fixed in RHEL9 to make start requests internally idempotent, so that workaround is also unnecessary in the future...this stuff accumulates like barnacles on a ship.

@yuqi-zhang
Copy link
Contributor

Just coming back to this PR, should we merge this (and only for 4.12+)?

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

Just coming back to this PR, should we merge this (and only for 4.12+)?

I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm pretty confident in doing so.

One important thing; to follow up on #3239 (comment)

Actually there's no (really strong) need to backport the "systemctl start idempotence" to the MCO code here because it's only invoked once on MCD startup and hence could only come into play in some sort of crash loop of the daemon.

The real bug there is fixed (well, worked around) by openshift/os#898

Copy link
Contributor

@yuqi-zhang yuqi-zhang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The real bug there is fixed (well, worked around) by openshift/os#898

Yes, I saw that, ok, let's get this in to 4.12 in conjunction and see if the behaviour is all settled now. If anything, 4.11 will only get the backport via openshift/os#900 so if anything does still not work as well, we can fix in 4.12

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 19, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 19, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cgwalters, yuqi-zhang

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [cgwalters,yuqi-zhang]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 2 against base HEAD dd64813 and 8 for PR HEAD 0bcb4d2 in total

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 1 against base HEAD dd64813 and 7 for PR HEAD 0bcb4d2 in total

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 20, 2022

@cgwalters: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot merged commit 803cee5 into openshift:master Jul 20, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants