Possible ZFS bug? Insufficient sanity checks

[Mark Felder]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 8:47, Borja Marcos wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Doing something stupid I managed to corrupt a ZFS pool. I think it
> shouldn´t have been possible. I hope to reproduce it next week, but
> it's better to share just in case. 
> 
> I know what I did was quite foolish, and no dolphins were hurt as it's
> just a test machine.
> 
> FreeBSD pruebassd 10.0-STABLE FreeBSD 10.0-STABLE #8: Wed Feb 12 09:32:29
> UTC 2014     root at pruebassd:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PRUEBASSD2_10  amd64
> 
> The pool has one RAIDZ vdev, with 6 OCZ Vertex 4 SSDs.
> 
> The stupid manoeuvre was as follows:
> 
> 1) Pick up one of the disks at random.
> 
> 2) Extract it.
> 
> So far so good. zpool warns that the pool is in degraded state, but
> everythng works.
> 
> 3) Take the disk to a different system. Insert it and create a new pool
> on it. Just one disk, I was testing a data corruption issue with a "mfi"
> adapter.
> 
> 4) Do some tests.
> 
> 5) Probably (not sure) destroy the newly created pool.
> 
> 6) take the ssd to the original machine -> insert it
> 
> And here the fun comes.
> 
> 7) zpool online cashopul (the previously removed disk)
> 
> 8) KABOOM! zpool warns of data corruption all over the place. -> most
> files corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> My  theory: When doing the "zpool online" ZFS just checked the disk
> serial number or identification, and, being the same, *not verifying the
> pool identity* it mixed it into the pool with disastrous consequences.
> 
> What I think should have happened instead:
> 
> - ZFS should verify the physical disk "identity" *and* verify that the
> ZFS metadata on the disk indeed belongs to the pool on which it's being
> "onlined".
> 
> 
> Again, I do know that I did something very foolish (I behave in a foolish
> and careless way with that machine on purpose).
> 
> I'll try to reproduce this next week (I'm waiting to receive some SAS 
> cables).
> 
> 

I'm curious: on both machines did the zpools share the same name?