lshw doesn't have logicalname, serial number, or size for nvme device

Bug #1705064 reported by Jason Hobbs
12
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
OEM Priority Project
Confirmed
High
Yuan-Chen Cheng
lshw (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

There is an nvme device on my system, at PCI:0000:05:00.0.

Here is the lshw output:

https://pastebin.com/9t7Pj2pH

There is no 'logicalname', 'serial', or 'size' field given for the device.

lsblk output includes all of that info:
https://pastebin.com/P2PtZ2Rn

Upstream bug: http://www.ezix.org/project/ticket/752

tags: added: cdo-qa
tags: added: foundations-engine
description: updated
Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :
Changed in oem-priority:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → High
assignee: nobody → Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn)
tags: added: oem-priority
Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :

ppa for testing: https://launchpad.net/~ycheng-twn/+archive/ubuntu/lshw
TODO: change log need refine (might need to refine in patch file)

Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

Changed in lshw (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Note that Fedora has patches in https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1329140 that fix the NVME issue - maybe these could be used in the Ubuntu package builds too?

I tried building lshw from the master branch, including the above fix (comment #1), but it didn't work. However, I can confirm the patched Fedora version works.

I would be happy to help with fixing this as this problem has been a thorn in my side for a while.

Hamish

Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :

per check fedora repo. I think the patch used in fedora should be the same as the one mentioned in #1. [1] vs [2]

However, it seems the maintainer of lshw wants something better. Refer to [3]

IMHO, the existing one shall works for most cases for now. We might have certain in-compatibility in the future as the maintainer land something else. However something partially works still helps us, right?

[1] https://github.com/lyonel/lshw/pull/45/commits/16e1d7b9e9a1aa69a59867de0aad6411c953fbfc
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lshw/blob/master/f/lshw-B.02.18-nvme.patch
[3] https://ezix.org/src/pkg/lshw/pulls/27

Revision history for this message
Yuan-Chen Cheng (ycheng-twn) wrote :

I upload 02.18.85-0.3ubuntu2~p1 (focal) to https://launchpad.net/~ycheng-twn/+archive/ubuntu/lshw and it works for me.

Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Also works for me. In my case, I ran the binary on Ubuntu 18.04 because that's what my real hardware is using.

If we can get this into Focal, that'd be great, but I wonder if we can backport into previous releases as well.

Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Don't know if someone should mark as fix committed in this case, seeing as there are fixes out there.

Revision history for this message
Matthieu Clemenceau (mclemenceau) wrote :

Focal still has lshw 02.18.85-0.3ubuntu1, I don't see 02.18.85-0.3ubuntu2 in proposed,

the last push to proposed was 01-30-2020

Is this going to be push to proposed?

Revision history for this message
Matthieu Clemenceau (mclemenceau) wrote :

nevermind my previous comment #9, wrong bug ...

Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Regardless, it'd be great for this to make it into the LTS release, but I don't know how to make that happen. It might also be too late, but I hope not.

Revision history for this message
Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty (hamishmb) wrote :

Adding a note to say that either this has been fixed in a B02.19, or the patch must have made it into the Ubuntu package for 22.04 at least (and I think 20.04 too, but I don't have an easy way to verify that at the moment)

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.