cephfs: upgrading mount syntax #5090

MageekChiu · 2025-01-17T18:36:58Z

The old syntax is almost deprecated, and there are reasons to upgrade it to the new one

old syntax is lack of fsid param, which is critical for debugging and observability
mds_namespace is deprecated, so it might be inappropriate to continue using it
kernel will try new syntax first and then the old one(check with mount -v), it is a waste to use the old one

From the ubuntu manpage，20.04 LTS supports the old syntax while 22.04 LTS supports the new one.

nixpanic · 2025-01-20T09:02:04Z

Could you update the PR description with a reference that explains the changes? It would be useful to know how recent these changes are, and if there could be a problem when users have an older version deployed.

It seems the commit message contains a few long lines. Please edit it and keep them under 80 characters.

@kotreshhr, maybe you have a reference to the new/changed mount options handy?

MageekChiu · 2025-01-21T11:26:38Z

@nixpanic Greate advices, thank you.
I‘ve edited the PR description and the commit message.

Cool homepage by the way, need to add one myself 😄.

nixpanic

Looks good to me, thanks!

internal/cephfs/mounter/kernel.go

Pull request has been modified.

kotreshhr · 2025-01-28T07:08:02Z

Many thanks @MageekChiu!

Could you update the PR description with a reference that explains the changes? It would be useful to know how recent these changes are, and if there could be a problem when users have an older version deployed.

It seems the commit message contains a few long lines. Please edit it and keep them under 80 characters.

@kotreshhr, maybe you have a reference to the new/changed mount options handy?

I see the old and new mount options are already linked in the PR. Yes, the kernel tries the new syntax first and falls back to old if not available. I think this should be fine but tagging the kernel developer @Markuze @vshankar to confirm if this breaks anything based on the version it got introduced.

nixpanic · 2025-01-28T12:00:06Z

internal/cephfs/store/volumeoptions.go

 	RequestName  string
 	NamePrefix   string
 	ClusterID    string
+	FsID         string


Instead of always fetching the FsID, can you add a func (vo *VolumeOptions) GetFSID() (string, error) function?

This can then be used where needed, currently only in NewKernelMounter().

By extending the NewVolumeOptions() function, it grows (too) large, and the golang-ci linter fails due to that.

@nixpanic,I believe you may have missed this—we already have GetFSID() defined in the ClusterConnection struct. Since ClusterConnection is a member of the VolumeOptions struct, it can be accessed via vo.conn.GetFSID().

nixpanic · 2025-02-05T17:05:33Z

Hi @MageekChiu, the PR looks good to me. Can you squash all commits into a single one and force-push your branch? That makes it possible for the @mergify bot can do it's work and get this in soon.

Thanks!

iPraveenParihar · 2025-02-06T09:05:04Z

internal/cephfs/mounter/kernel.go

 		m.needsModprobe = false
 	}

+	fsID, err := volOptions.GetFSID()


why can't we use existing GetFSID() instead?

Suggested change

fsID, err := volOptions.GetFSID()

fsID, err := volOptions.GetConnection().GetFSID()

volOptions.GetConnection() can return nil, so it is not really safe. A new GetFSID() would prevent any incorrect usage, now, and possibly in the future.

Yeah, I think the checking is needed, Connect and Destroy do the checking too.
And I've squashed the commits.

volOptions.GetConnection() can return nil, so it is not really safe. A new GetFSID() would prevent any incorrect usage, now, and possibly in the future.

when volOptions struct is created, we make sure we have the connection set. There is no way GetConnection() could return nil.

IMO, GetConnection() should be handling the nil check, or the GetConnection() caller should check for nil and proceed.

as we have similar usage at some places. for example -

ceph-csi/internal/cephfs/nodeserver.go

Lines 145 to 153 in 72b9d5a

ioctx, err := volOptions.GetConnection().GetIoctx(volOptions.MetadataPool)

if err != nil {

log.ErrorLog(ctx, "Failed to create ioctx: %s", err)

return err

}

defer ioctx.Destroy()

Sure, improving GetConnection() would be nice too. I don't think that needs to be done in this PR though.

Sure, improving GetConnection() would be nice too. I don't think that needs to be done in this PR though.

That can be done through issue #5129.

iPraveenParihar · 2025-02-07T09:43:22Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e/k8s-1.32

nixpanic · 2025-02-07T10:17:47Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e/k8s-1.32

There has been a new Ceph release yesterday, building Ceph-CSI fails until the new container-image can install required RPMs (librados-devel etc...). 😢

nixpanic · 2025-02-13T09:13:24Z

@Mergifyio rebase

@iPraveenParihar , is there anything blocking this PR from your point of view?

mergify · 2025-02-13T09:13:43Z

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

nixpanic · 2025-02-13T09:21:59Z

@Mergifyio queue

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:51:07Z

seems like the ok-to-test label is not working here? trying to remove and add manually, if that works.

Add Comment action fails

peter-evans/create-or-update-comment@71345be0265236311c031f5c7866368bd1eff043 is not allowed to be used in ceph/ceph-csi. Actions in this workflow must be: within a repository owned by ceph, created by GitHub, or matching the following: ....

adding comments manually for now.

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:52:09Z

/test ci/centos/k8s-e2e-external-storage/1.29

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:52:15Z

/test ci/centos/k8s-e2e-external-storage/1.30

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:52:20Z

/test ci/centos/k8s-e2e-external-storage/1.31

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:52:38Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e-helm/k8s-1.30

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:52:41Z

ci/centos/mini-e2e-helm/k8s-1.31

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:52:50Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e/k8s-1.29

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:52:54Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e/k8s-1.30

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:53:00Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e/k8s-1.31

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:53:07Z

/test ci/centos/upgrade-tests-cephfs

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T09:53:15Z

/test ci/centos/upgrade-tests-rbd

mergify · 2025-03-24T09:54:23Z

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: checks failed.

The merge conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks:

You may have to fix your CI before adding the pull request to the queue again.

If you want to requeue this pull request, you can post a @mergifyio requeue comment.

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T10:56:23Z

/retest ci/centos/upgrade-tests-cephfs

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-24T10:56:33Z

/retest ci/centos/upgrade-tests-rbd

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-25T05:38:58Z

/retest ci/centos/upgrade-tests-rbd

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-25T05:41:06Z

/retest ci/centos/upgrade-tests-cephfs

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-25T06:02:26Z

@Mergifyio requeue

mergify · 2025-03-25T06:02:34Z

requeue

✅ The queue state of this pull request has been cleaned. It can be re-embarked automatically

iPraveenParihar · 2025-03-25T08:40:12Z

@Mergifyio requeue

mergify · 2025-03-25T08:40:16Z

requeue

☑️ This pull request is already queued

nixpanic · 2025-03-25T09:26:05Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e-helm/k8s-1.29

nixpanic · 2025-03-25T09:26:19Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e-helm/k8s-1.31

nixpanic · 2025-03-25T12:53:15Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e-helm/k8s-1.32

nixpanic · 2025-03-25T12:53:23Z

/test ci/centos/mini-e2e/k8s-1.32

nixpanic · 2025-03-25T12:53:36Z

/test ci/centos/k8s-e2e-external-storage/1.32

mergify bot added the component/cephfs Issues related to CephFS label Jan 17, 2025

MageekChiu force-pushed the devel branch 3 times, most recently from 19eeb9a to 21d1d64 Compare January 21, 2025 10:46

nixpanic previously approved these changes Jan 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

nixpanic requested a review from a team January 21, 2025 12:35

iPraveenParihar reviewed Jan 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

internal/cephfs/mounter/kernel.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

MageekChiu force-pushed the devel branch 2 times, most recently from 63c4692 to 42b818b Compare January 25, 2025 15:52

MageekChiu requested review from iPraveenParihar and nixpanic January 25, 2025 15:54

nixpanic reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

MageekChiu requested a review from nixpanic February 2, 2025 11:42

iPraveenParihar requested changes Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

MageekChiu force-pushed the devel branch from 82be04b to 4a721fe Compare February 6, 2025 12:49

nixpanic previously approved these changes Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

nixpanic requested a review from iPraveenParihar February 7, 2025 09:34

nixpanic mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2025

cephfs: make volOptions.GetConnection() safer to use #5129

Open

nixpanic force-pushed the devel branch from 4a721fe to 83cea81 Compare February 13, 2025 09:13

iPraveenParihar previously approved these changes Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

iPraveenParihar added the ok-to-test Label to trigger E2E tests label Mar 24, 2025

nixpanic removed the ok-to-test Label to trigger E2E tests label Mar 25, 2025

mergify bot merged commit 0c60fd2 into ceph:devel Mar 25, 2025
29 checks passed

Starttoaster mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2025

Failing to mount cephfs volumes with invalid argument #5282

Closed

1602077 mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2025

[manila-csi-plugin] Unable to mount alternate filesystem via CEPHFS share protocol kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack#2992

Closed

	fsID, err := volOptions.GetFSID()
	fsID, err := volOptions.GetConnection().GetFSID()


	ioctx, err := volOptions.GetConnection().GetIoctx(volOptions.MetadataPool)
	if err != nil {
	log.ErrorLog(ctx, "Failed to create ioctx: %s", err)

	return err
	}
	defer ioctx.Destroy()

Uh oh!

cephfs: upgrading mount syntax #5090

cephfs: upgrading mount syntax #5090

Uh oh!

Conversation

MageekChiu commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nixpanic commented Jan 20, 2025

Uh oh!

MageekChiu commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

nixpanic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kotreshhr commented Jan 28, 2025

Uh oh!

nixpanic Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nixpanic commented Feb 5, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nixpanic Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MageekChiu Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar Feb 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nixpanic Feb 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nixpanic Feb 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Feb 7, 2025

Uh oh!

nixpanic commented Feb 7, 2025

Uh oh!

nixpanic commented Feb 13, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented Feb 13, 2025

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

Uh oh!

nixpanic commented Feb 13, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented Mar 24, 2025

MageekChiu commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

iPraveenParihar Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

iPraveenParihar commented Mar 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading