infinityBenC: When you get a chance, can you test the new ppc kernel on one or two of your freescale platforms?  Seemed happy on my IBM kit.02:50
=== smb` is now known as smb
smbinfinity, I may do when I could stop holding my breath for some progress by others on other things. Bah!07:27
* apw yawns07:57
* ppisati reboot08:10
apwsmb, heads up ... luks encrypted partitions seem to have a size ... so when you have an fs in an ecrypted lvm one needs to resize the volume, the luks, and the fs09:47
smbapw, nifty09:48
apwi had assumed that it would be 'sizeless' that it would be encrypt data, write to block number +109:49
apwand not care how big it is, seems not09:49
smbHm, there seems to be a resize for cryptsetup plain... not found anything obvious for luks prefix yet09:50
xnoxapw: it is sizeless, but it needs a tiny bit of header padding in the beginning.09:51
* xnox did a successfully shrank encrypted lvm without causing data loss.09:52
apwxnox, there is a 'resize' command at the cryptsetup which 'collected wisdom' (read googling) implies you should run that, so e2fsresize smaller, cryptsetup resize smaller, lvm resize smaller09:52
apwxnox, but it sounds like you missed the middle step and still have your data :)09:53
apwsmb, do you know what happens if you snapshot an LV and then resize the original smaller09:53
smbapw, no09:53
apwsmb, i assume there is a way to take a snapshot and promote it to a full LV with its own blocks ?09:54
xnoxwell I had: partition -> crypt -> lvm -> volumes. So yeah, i did e2fsrezise, vgresize, and partition resize. I guess i should have used cryptsetup resize =))))))09:54
smbapw, Sure you can dd it...  :-P09:55
smbxnox, vgresize ? not lvresize?09:55
smbhm, eh probably implies09:56
xnoxsmb: implies, i had enough spare extends.09:56
xnoxor whatever lvm measures it's vgs in.09:56
smbxnox, just was wondering about one of the things sounding odd without being clear which. If all volumes are in the vg and that has enough spare extents, one would not need to resize any fs09:59
xnoxsmb: depends where physically extends are allocated for used volumes. So for me i had ||||||||________|||____|| so I had to move extends in the VG to make it look like |||||||||||||___||______ and then I was able to shrink it to |||||||||||||___||10:01
smbapw, For that dreaded vg on loop and dd on snapshot bug I would be glad if there was a quick snapshot to full lv (or actually any). But as the snapshot is reference to origin plus delta it is not that simple10:01
smbxnox, Sure that just needed to ensure that all lvs only use extends before the parts you want to reduce. If there is enough free that is just moving some blocks and making the mapping a bit more complex. As long as the lvs can stay the same e2fsresize is not needed. So you had the dm device that crypt produces as a pv for lvm?10:06
smb(just wondering whether that did not also require a crypt resize)10:06
xnoxi believe yes. just the default encrypted install which d-i / ubiquity produce.10:08
=== fmasi_afk is now known as fmasi
smbAh, hm that may actually have been part->lvm->lvs->crypt... (though I would need to do an install again to be sure) Somehow I think it was a bit hard(er) to convince lvm to expect pvs in device-mapper volumes... 10:17
xnoxsmb: there is a single crypt device which contains one vg which has volume for rootfs and a volume for swap.10:19
xnoxthat's how d-i/ubiquity does it in automatic partitioning.10:19
xnoxbut one can in the manual partitioning setup the scheme you described.10:20
=== fmasi is now known as fmasi_afk
apwrtg_, i am just prepping a saucy upload, as there is some doubt over the overlaysfs fixes, so i am reving it to v1812:32
apw(as overlayfs is key for the CDs)12:32
rtg_apw, ack12:32
apwrtg_, it'll carry your debug change as well12:33
rtg_that one wasn't all that important12:33
apwnope but it may as well go in, otherwise there is nothing and that is probabally good, so i can just touch test this12:34
rtg_apw, did 3.10.0-0.7 break the dailies ?12:41
psivaahello, I reported bug #1195710 that is impacting multi-lvm saucy server installations of today's image12:41
ubot2`Launchpad bug 1195710 in linux (Ubuntu) "'Kernel bug - invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP' is reported at 'Preparing linux-image-extra-3.10.0-0-generic' stage of multi-lvm installations of amd64 saucy server " [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/119571012:41
apwrtg_, i don't think it did, but rather than there be any risk of it being wrong i think i'll update it12:42
psivaaa failed installation is active in one of our servers, aldebaran if anyone would like to look into12:42
psivaathis appears to happen during kernel installation stage12:44
apwpsivaa, have we had any good installs on anything today ?12:44
psivaaapw: yes, apart from multi-lvm on amd64 server images, the other server installs are good12:45
psivaaapw: desktop had some other ubiquity issues though12:45
apwpsivaa, ok good thanks12:45
apwpsivaa, and this only happens  on complex lvm installs, what does multi-lvm mean in this context12:54
smbfunnily most of that backtrace is about ext412:58
apwsmb, i know odd isn't it, odd that it only appears on lvm12:58
rtg_seems like an indirect op's pointer got corrupted ?12:59
smbpsivaa, It might help us a lot if you could elaborate in the bug what multi-lvm actually means in the way of setup12:59
=== fmasi_afk is now known as fmasi
apwsmb, and only on 64 bit as well13:01
=== fmasi is now known as fmasi_afk
psivaasmb: ok, ill try to include that info13:02
* henrix -> back in 15 mins13:02
apwthere is only one BUG in that routine13:03
apwso i guess it has to be that one, which implies we found non-preallocate space on the list to free13:03
psivaaapw: so it appears that this is occurring in i386 as well, saw that on the second attempt. ill update the bug13:08
apwpsivaa, but only on lvm, very odd13:14
* apw can see no way overlyfs could be in involved in that error at least13:17
apwpsivaa, in hte i386 failure, the same stack trace ?13:17
psivaaapw: yes to my eyes, but please see http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/5807755/13:19
apwit may be hinting at one layer deeper, but feeling related13:20
apwa slightly different manifestation, but here we are complaiing that osmething on the never allocated list is marked as deleted13:22
apwpsivaa, and nothing like this on non lvm testing13:22
psivaaapw: i'm running a couple of more tests just to confirm that. will update once the tests finish13:23
rtg_apw, want me to wrap up Ubuntu-3.10.0-1.8 while you are messing with that LVM bug ?13:30
apwrtg_, i have pushed the tag, and built some test kernels13:31
rtg_ok, np13:31
apwand have it ready to upload, so prolly i can just ocmplete it13:31
apwi have the source package ready to go now, just do this boot test, and touch test overlayfs13:32
rtg_hallyn, USER_NS seems to be getting close in 3.10. Only XFS_FS is left in the UIDGID_CONVERTED dependencies. Perhaps by 3.11 ?13:34
hallynrtg_: perhaps.  Dwight at oracle is actually trying to get that done right now, but the xfs folks have some problems...13:39
hallynmost of all, they're wondering what to do with bulkstat13:39
rtg_hmm, well its getting close to the 3.11 merge window.13:40
hallynyeah :(13:40
hallyndoes anyone here have terrific insights into xfs?13:41
hallynand its peculiarities?13:41
apwrtg_, do you have saucy linux-meta sitting unpushed ?13:53
rtg_apw, checking13:53
apwrtg_, ta13:53
rtg_apw, ok, pushed13:54
apwrtg_, thanks13:58
psivaaapw: no other server installations see this bug not even single lvm. only multi-lvm tests installations are failing. Incidentally only the failing (multi-lvm) installations use "d-i base-installer/kernel/override-imagestring linux-generic-pae"13:59
psivaaall the other installations (which pass) use linux-server14:00
apwpsivaa, but in both of those cases linux-generic-pae and linux-server are meta packages to linux-generic, so there sould be no difference in the version running14:01
apw(in saucy)14:02
=== kentb-out is now known as kentb
apwpsivaa, so multi-lvm just means use LVM and to split root into various partitions14:07
psivaaapw: yes as far as i understood.14:08
psivaa "d-i partman-auto/choose_recipe select Separate /home, /usr, /var, and /tmp partitions" in multi-lvm as opposed to "d-i partman-auto/choose_recipe select All files in one partition (recommended for new users)"14:08
apwwhich doesn't sound overly differnet really14:09
psivaaok, i have run the latter a number of times, 6 in total but could not see the failure14:10
apwand of the multi-lvm ones whats the failure rate there14:11
psivaaapw: 3 out of 414:12
apwo.O is all i can say to that14:13
apwpsivaa, which image are you testing, so i can test the saem one, and do i see you testing in kvm yes?14:22
psivaaapw: yes that's in kvm and today's saucy server images (20130628)14:23
=== kentb is now known as kentb-afk
=== kentb-afk is now known as kentb
* smb -> EOW16:26
=== rtg_ is now known as rtg
* henrix -> EOW17:14
* rtg_ -> lunch17:56
=== hggdh_ is now known as hggdh
* rtg -> EOW20:00
phillwHi, a very quick question... Someone installs 10.04 via the netboot / mini.iso from, say, http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/lucid/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/ and then drops a DE onto it. They will get no security updates for the DE, but they will they still get kernel updates?20:38

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!