curtin looks up by wwn first (if present) so when processing the action for /dev/sda it actually (at least in the run I looked at) ended up clearing users from /dev/sdb instead. So the vg named "vg0" that was on sda didn't get cleared and then when it tried to create a new vg called vg0, things blew up.
I'm not going to bother trying to think of why some of your attempts failed and some succeeded. Your comment "even when only single drive was selected, somehow second(sdb) had clones of partitions from sda." does make sense given this though!
What we should do is be more robust to this behaviour (it's not the first time we've seen it). Something needs to notice when drives with the same WWN have different serials and ignore the wwn if that happens, or something along those lines.
Argh what is going on here is that you have two distinct drives with the same WWN. From the UdevDB from the crash report:
P: /devices/ pci0000: 00/0000: 00:11.0/ ata1/host0/ target0: 0:0/0:0: 0:0/block/ sda 0x5000000000000 000 SSDPR-CX400- 256-G2_ GXA062868
N: sda
...
E: ID_WWN=
...
E: ID_SERIAL=
P: /devices/ pci0000: 00/0000: 00:11.0/ ata2/host1/ target1: 0:0/1:0: 0:0/block/ sdb 0x5000000000000 000 SSDPR-CX400- 256-G2_ GXA062866
N: sdb
...
E: ID_WWN=
...
E: ID_SERIAL=
Distinct serial but same wwn. These values end up in the curtin config:
- id: disk-sda 256-G2_ GXA062868 0000' 256-G2_ GXA062866 0000'
path: /dev/sda
ptable: gpt
serial: SSDPR-CX400-
type: disk
wwn: '0x500000000000
- id: disk-sdb
path: /dev/sdb
ptable: gpt
serial: SSDPR-CX400-
type: disk
wwn: '0x500000000000
curtin looks up by wwn first (if present) so when processing the action for /dev/sda it actually (at least in the run I looked at) ended up clearing users from /dev/sdb instead. So the vg named "vg0" that was on sda didn't get cleared and then when it tried to create a new vg called vg0, things blew up.
I'm not going to bother trying to think of why some of your attempts failed and some succeeded. Your comment "even when only single drive was selected, somehow second(sdb) had clones of partitions from sda." does make sense given this though!
What we should do is be more robust to this behaviour (it's not the first time we've seen it). Something needs to notice when drives with the same WWN have different serials and ignore the wwn if that happens, or something along those lines.