OCPVE-600: Implement the ability to wipe the devices #423

suleymanakbas91 · 2023-09-14T14:01:55Z

No description provided.

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-09-14T14:01:59Z

@suleymanakbas91: This pull request references OCPVE-600 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

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.

openshift-ci · 2023-09-14T14:02:36Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

api/v1alpha1/lvmcluster_types.go

pkg/wipefs/wipefs.go

jakobmoellerdev · 2023-09-14T20:22:27Z

pkg/vgmanager/wipe_devices.go

+	allPaths := append(volumeGroup.Spec.DeviceSelector.Paths, volumeGroup.Spec.DeviceSelector.OptionalPaths...)
+	wiped := false
+	for _, path := range allPaths {
+		if isDeviceAlreadyPartOfVG(vgs, path, volumeGroup) {


I believe if the device is part of the vg and the vg was already creatd once and is discoverable in the node status, we can just skip this path. However, if the device is part of a vg that is not in the node status, we have to decide if we should risk killing the existing vg that is not managed by us by wiping the disk, or even erroring. WDYT?

I've changed the implementation to check isDeviceAlreadyPartOfVG by verifying the existence from the LVMVolumeGroupNodeStatus instead of from vgs call. This will prevent a case where the name of a user-created volume group is the same as the one created in LVMS, and we assume that it is created by LVMS, and skip these devices.

If we force wipe devices, shouldn't we also force wipe the devices that were created by LVMS and leftover?

jakobmoellerdev

Mostly nits, however I think we should make the new field immutable.

pkg/dmsetup/dmsetup.go

pkg/vgmanager/devices.go

jakobmoellerdev · 2023-09-28T10:25:16Z

pkg/vgmanager/wipe_devices_test.go

+			volumeGroup := &v1alpha1.LVMVolumeGroup{
+				ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: "vg1"},
+				Spec: v1alpha1.LVMVolumeGroupSpec{DeviceSelector: &v1alpha1.DeviceSelector{
+					Paths:                             tt.devicePaths,


These tests are missing optionalDevicePath cases I think. Did we test what happens when you pass a non existing devicePath to wipefs?

In the implementation, I just append optionalDevicePaths to devicePaths: https://github.com/openshift/lvm-operator/pull/423/files#diff-df5f27c889c2546de41e7ad40a6dbad4e9c7933a22593c529fd23977c25b9e54R19 So, I didn't think it'd make a difference to add optionalDevicePath cases to the test.

If the devicePath is non-existing, wipefs returns a failure like "No such file or directory". We just fail the reconciliation at that point.

If the devicePath is non-existing, wipefs returns a failure like "No such file or directory". We just fail the reconciliation at that point.

In a multi-node scenario, it is normal to have certain optionalDevices that are present on one node but not on another (imagine 2 devices with 2 nodes where each node has one of the devices, but not the other). In this case, it would always fail to wipe the devices on all nodes because at least one device would not be present.

jakobmoellerdev · 2023-09-28T10:31:00Z

bundle/manifests/lvm.topolvm.io_lvmclusters.yaml

@@ -56,6 +56,12 @@ spec:
                          description: DeviceSelector is a set of rules that should
                            match for a device to be included in the LVMCluster
                          properties:
+                            forceWipeDevicesAndDestroyAllData:


I believe we should make this property immutable after creation, see https://kubernetes.io/blog/2022/09/29/enforce-immutability-using-cel/#immutability-upon-object-creation or we can use the webhook, whatever you like more

pkg/wipefs/wipefs.go

jakobmoellerdev · 2023-10-02T08:39:02Z

/retest-required

Signed-off-by: Suleyman Akbas <sakbas@redhat.com>

codecov-commenter · 2023-10-02T12:11:31Z

Codecov Report

Merging #423 (56f7077) into main (bd11b2a) will increase coverage by 0.31%.
The diff coverage is 77.58%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #423      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.80%   66.11%   +0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          28       31       +3     
  Lines        2404     2497      +93     
==========================================
+ Hits         1582     1651      +69     
- Misses        677      694      +17     
- Partials      145      152       +7

Files	Coverage Δ
api/v1alpha1/lvmcluster_types.go	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
api/v1alpha1/lvmcluster_webhook.go	`82.41% <100.00%> (+0.73%)`	⬆️
pkg/vgmanager/devices.go	`80.17% <83.33%> (-1.41%)`	⬇️
pkg/wipefs/wipefs.go	`86.66% <86.66%> (ø)`
pkg/dmsetup/dmsetup.go	`82.35% <82.35%> (ø)`
pkg/vgmanager/vgmanager_controller.go	`34.21% <55.55%> (-0.43%)`	⬇️
pkg/vgmanager/wipe_devices.go	`75.00% <75.00%> (ø)`

openshift-ci · 2023-10-02T12:57:55Z

@suleymanakbas91: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

jakobmoellerdev

/lgtm

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-10-02T13:23:24Z

@suleymanakbas91: This pull request references OCPVE-600 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

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.

openshift-ci · 2023-10-02T13:23:40Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jakobmoellerdev, suleymanakbas91

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [suleymanakbas91]

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

OCPVE-600: Implement the ability to wipe the devices

openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Sep 14, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Sep 14, 2023

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch from 5561eae to cd8b6c6 Compare September 14, 2023 14:04

openshift-ci bot added the size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. label Sep 14, 2023

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch 3 times, most recently from 18fcf17 to b05a2a6 Compare September 14, 2023 14:11

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 14, 2023

jakobmoellerdev reviewed Sep 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 23, 2023

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch from b05a2a6 to ac0befe Compare September 26, 2023 08:31

openshift-ci bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 26, 2023

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 26, 2023

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch from ac0befe to 84eefba Compare September 26, 2023 08:44

openshift-ci bot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 26, 2023

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch 5 times, most recently from 7d3abc8 to bfebc93 Compare September 28, 2023 10:05

suleymanakbas91 marked this pull request as ready for review September 28, 2023 10:16

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Sep 28, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested review from brandisher and qJkee September 28, 2023 10:16

jakobmoellerdev suggested changes Sep 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch from bfebc93 to cc589f6 Compare September 28, 2023 13:23

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch 2 times, most recently from 5f3b9e1 to 0c926a6 Compare September 28, 2023 14:45

feat: wipe devices before using if enabled

56f7077

Signed-off-by: Suleyman Akbas <sakbas@redhat.com>

suleymanakbas91 force-pushed the wipefs branch from 0c926a6 to 56f7077 Compare October 2, 2023 12:04

jakobmoellerdev approved these changes Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned jakobmoellerdev Oct 2, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 2, 2023

openshift-merge-robot merged commit e7498c2 into openshift:main Oct 2, 2023

suleymanakbas91 pushed a commit to suleymanakbas91/lvm-operator that referenced this pull request Oct 2, 2023

Merge pull request openshift#423 from suleymanakbas91/wipefs

c7760dc

OCPVE-600: Implement the ability to wipe the devices

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

OCPVE-600: Implement the ability to wipe the devices #423

OCPVE-600: Implement the ability to wipe the devices #423

suleymanakbas91 commented Sep 14, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 14, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 14, 2023

jakobmoellerdev Sep 14, 2023

suleymanakbas91 Sep 28, 2023

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

jakobmoellerdev left a comment

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

suleymanakbas91 Sep 28, 2023

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

jakobmoellerdev commented Oct 2, 2023

codecov-commenter commented Oct 2, 2023

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 2, 2023

jakobmoellerdev left a comment

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 2, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 2, 2023

OCPVE-600: Implement the ability to wipe the devices #423

OCPVE-600: Implement the ability to wipe the devices #423

Conversation

suleymanakbas91 commented Sep 14, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 14, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 14, 2023

jakobmoellerdev Sep 14, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

suleymanakbas91 Sep 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakobmoellerdev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

suleymanakbas91 Sep 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakobmoellerdev Sep 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakobmoellerdev commented Oct 2, 2023

codecov-commenter commented Oct 2, 2023

Codecov Report

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 2, 2023

jakobmoellerdev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 2, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 2, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 14, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 2, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading