You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the feature would like to see added to OpenZFS
#12901 deleted the counters for decryption errors as "useless". Since I've personally had to ask people to run 2.1 several times now to see if their bug was a decryption error, I don't really agree.
How will this feature improve OpenZFS?
Since decryption errors are, like most of native encryption, janky and not well integrated into things like error reporting, at least having a counter to expose this happening would be useful still. (As it is, you get to guess from weird janky things like seeing errors reported without any R/W/CK incrementing, or hoping it didn't overflow the events backlog before they asked you...assuming it was even surfaced correctly.)
Additional context
#15267 and #15474 were recent cases where it was useful, #16147 is a case where it would have been useful but the user was running 2.2 so they couldn't use it, since it was deleted. #15837 was another case the user found it useful until they migrated to 2.2 and it was no longer there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Describe the feature would like to see added to OpenZFS
#12901 deleted the counters for decryption errors as "useless". Since I've personally had to ask people to run 2.1 several times now to see if their bug was a decryption error, I don't really agree.
How will this feature improve OpenZFS?
Since decryption errors are, like most of native encryption, janky and not well integrated into things like error reporting, at least having a counter to expose this happening would be useful still. (As it is, you get to guess from weird janky things like seeing errors reported without any R/W/CK incrementing, or hoping it didn't overflow the events backlog before they asked you...assuming it was even surfaced correctly.)
Additional context
#15267 and #15474 were recent cases where it was useful, #16147 is a case where it would have been useful but the user was running 2.2 so they couldn't use it, since it was deleted. #15837 was another case the user found it useful until they migrated to 2.2 and it was no longer there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: