Bug#436964: Bug in 2.4 kernels with latest lvm2

[Alex Deucher]

On 8/9/07, Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> wrote:
> reassign 436964 lvm2
> found 436964 2.02.06-4
> severity 436964 serious
> tags 436964 etch
> thanks
>
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 06:51:30PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On 8/9/07, Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:01:43PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > > Package: Kernel
> > > > Version: 2.4.27-3-sparc64-smp
>
> > > > I had a server go down during a power outage and upon rebooting, lvm
> > > > failed to work (2.4 kernel).  I could access the PVs, VGs, and LVs ok,
> > > > but I could not activate the VG.  Attempting to activate the VG
> > > > resulted in this error:
>
> > > Which version of lvm2 are you referring to as the "latest"?  This bug report
> > > is not useful in its current state; either the bug lies in the lvm2 package
> > > in etch for depending on features not compatible with 2.4 kernels, or this
> > > is user error and not a bug at all because you're trying to use packages
> > > newer than etch with a 2.4 kernel which is not supported at all.
>
> > This box is still sarge.
>
> Except clearly it's not, because you have etch versions of lvm2,
> libdevmapper1.02, and dmsetup installed.

Sorry about that.  I didn't realize those where etch versions.  I've
never done a formal upgrade, so I'm not sure how they found their way
in. Oh, I know, one of the debian lvm devs on #lvm had me add:
deb http://snapshot.debian.net/archive pool devmapper
to my apt sources, that may be how they ended up in there.

>
> > lvm2 2.02.06-4
> > libdevmapper1.02 2:1.02.05-2.1 through 2:1.02.12-1
> > dmsetup 2:1.02.05-2.1 through 2:1.02.12-1
>
> > lvm2 used to work.  I've kept the box upgraded consistently, but it
> > hadn't been rebooted in quite a while,  When the power went out and
> > the box rebooted lvm stopped working.  presumably something lvm
> > related.
>
> Etch userspace packages are expected to be compatible with the 2.4 kernels
> in sarge.  In cases where they aren't this is a bug in etch, not in sarge;
> even if someone was inclined to do an ABI-changing, oldstable upload of the
> 2.4 kernel for a non-security bug, there's no guarantee at all that users
> will install that package before attempting an upgrade to etch, so the only
> reliable way to deal with the problem is on the etch side.
>

Ah, ok.  That makes sense.  Let me know if you need any more info from me.

Thanks,

Alex