Low: IPaddr2: Remove stray backslash

[nrwahl2]

Fixes this warning (which gets logged on every recurring monitor for a Pacemaker resource):

$ OCF_ROOT=/usr/lib/ocf OCF_RESKEY_ip=192.168.22.41     \
        /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/IPaddr2 monitor
grep: warning: stray \ before white space

[knet-jenkins[bot]]

Can one of the admins check and authorise this run please: https://ci.kronosnet.org/job/resource-agents/job/resource-agents-pipeline/job/PR-1904/1/input

[HideoYamauchi]

Hi Reid,

I checked on RHEL9.2, but no relevant warnings were issued. Is it a distribution dependent fix?

[root@rh92-01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release 
Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 9.2 (Plow)

[root@rh92-01 ~]# ip a | grep 192.168.201
    inet 192.168.201.2/24 brd 192.168.201.255 scope global noprefixroute eno6
    inet 192.168.201.5/24 brd 192.168.201.255 scope global secondary eno6
[root@rh92-01 ~]# OCF_ROOT=/usr/lib/ocf OCF_RESKEY_ip=192.168.201.6 /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/IPaddr2 monitor
[root@rh92-01 ~]# OCF_ROOT=/usr/lib/ocf OCF_RESKEY_ip=192.168.201.5 /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/IPaddr2 monitor

Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi.

[nrwahl2]

I checked on RHEL9.2, but no relevant warnings were issued. Is it a distribution dependent fix?

I'm on Fedora 39, so that warning is probably issued under a newer grep.

[HideoYamauchi]

Hi Reid,

I checked on RHEL9.2, but no relevant warnings were issued. Is it a distribution dependent fix?

I'm on Fedora 39, so that warning is probably issued under a newer grep.

Okay!

I haven't looked into the processing of IPaddr2 in detail, but the result of find_interface will be different after this modification is applied. Is there no problem?

----
find_interface() {
(snip)
        ocf_log info "#### YAMAUCHI #### find_interface()"
        local iface="`$IP2UTIL -o -f $FAMILY addr show \
#               | grep "\ $ipaddr/$netmask" \
                | grep " $ipaddr/$netmask" \
                | cut -d ' ' -f2 \
                | grep -v '^ipsec[0-9][0-9]*$'`"

        echo "$iface"
        ocf_log info "#### YAMAUCHI #### $iface"
(snip)
----
(Change before)
[root@rh92-01 ~]# OCF_ROOT=/usr/lib/ocf OCF_RESKEY_ip=192.168.201.5 /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/IPaddr2 monitor
INFO: #### YAMAUCHI #### find_interface()
INFO: #### YAMAUCHI #### 5: eno6    inet 192.168.201.5/24 brd 192.168.201.255 scope global secondary eno6\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

(After change)
[root@rh92-01 ~]# OCF_ROOT=/usr/lib/ocf OCF_RESKEY_ip=192.168.201.5 /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/IPaddr2 monitor
INFO: #### YAMAUCHI #### find_interface()
INFO: #### YAMAUCHI #### 1: lo    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3: ens2f1    inet 192.168.102.2/24 brd 192.168.102.255 scope global noprefixroute ens2f1\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: eno5    inet 192.168.202.2/24 brd 192.168.202.255 scope global noprefixroute eno5\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
5: eno6    inet 192.168.201.2/24 brd 192.168.201.255 scope global noprefixroute eno6\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
5: eno6    inet 192.168.201.5/24 brd 192.168.201.255 scope global secondary eno6\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
6: eno7    inet 192.168.101.2/24 brd 192.168.101.255 scope global noprefixroute eno7\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
7: eno8    inet 192.168.28.2/24 brd 192.168.28.255 scope global noprefixroute eno8\       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi.

[nrwahl2]

I haven't looked into the processing of IPaddr2 in detail, but the result of find_interface will be different after this modification is applied. Is there no problem?

Can you remove the line instead of commenting it out, and test again? The commented line is breaking both tests. Note that in the "before" case, it should be printing only eno6, not the whole line containing eno6.

[HideoYamauchi]

Hi Reid,

Can you remove the line instead of commenting it out, and test again? The commented line is breaking both tests. Note that in the "before" case, it should be printing only eno6, not the whole line containing eno6.

Sorry....

It was a mistake in my confirmation. Both gave the same output.

Many thanks, Hideo Yamauchi.

[oalbrigt]

retest this please

[oalbrigt]

retest this please

[oalbrigt]

Thanks.