From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C87652A1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:35:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 97F0C2DEF3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:35:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id C21AC2DEE8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:35:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9C14B436C8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:35:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:35:09 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20220131175918.2099575-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <20220131175918.2099575-4-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <<20220131175918.2099575-4-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1643711031.6fpgdd4qz1.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.218 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [systemd.io] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-kernel-meta 3/5] proxmox-boot: fix #3671 add pin/unpin for kernel-version X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:35:48 -0000 On January 31, 2022 6:59 pm, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > The 2 commands follow the mechanics of p-b-t kernel add/remove in > writing the desired abi-version to a config-file in /etc/kernel and > actually modifying the boot-loader configuration upon p-b-t refresh. >=20 > A dedicated new file is used instead of writing the version (with some > kind of annotation) to the manual kernel list to keep parsing the file > simple (and hopefully also cause fewer problems with manually edited > files) one thing I noticed while playing around - the following sequence of=20 actions is a bit surprising: - pin (old) version FOO - refresh - ... (long time, different admin, ..) - apt remove pve-kernel-$FOO while this prints No linux-image /boot/vmlinuz-$FOO found - skipping this is kind of hard to understand without knowing about p-b-t internals, skipping here means we don't copy the kernel/initrd from /boot to the=20 ESP (since there is no source). now the $FOO kernel (and initrd) are on=20 the ESPs, but not in /boot. since the package is no longer installed,=20 future ABI-compatible upgrades are not installed, and the initrd is=20 never regenerated when triggered by other factors. worse, if I pinned that kernel for important reasons (e.g., HW-compat),=20 removing the pin (via unpin, pinning another version, or next-boot to=20 try whether an updated kernel improves the situation!) will remove the=20 only copy of it.. I am not sure what we can do here (except making the message more=20 prominent?) - failing apt is ugly, removing the kernel on the ESP when=20 removing it from /boot despite it being pinned only makes it worse.. OTOH since a pinned kernel is by definition never auto-removed, hooking=20 into the APT hook might work since that would mean the removal is never=20 started, and the resulting dpkg/apt state is clean? obviously only=20 possible for our kernels where we know the naming scheme, anything=20 custom could still run into the issue.. > For systemd-boot we write the entry into the loader.conf on the ESP(s) > instead of relying on the `bootctl set-default` mechanics (bootctl(1)) > which write the entry in an EFI-var. This was preferred, because of a > few reports of unwriteable EFI-vars on some systems (e.g. DELL servers > have a setting preventing writing EFI-vars from the OS). The rationale > in `Why not simply rely on the EFI boot menu logic?` from [0] also > makes a few points in that direction. >=20 > For grub the following choices were made: > * write the pinned version (or actually the menu-path leading to it) > to /etc/default/grub instead of editing the grub.cfg files on the > partition. Mostly to divert as little as possible from the > grub-workflow I assume people are used to. did you test whether adding a snippet overriding GRUB_DEFAULT also=20 works? we already do that to set the distributor for the various=20 products.. creating/deleting a=20 /etc/default/grub.d/y_proxmox_pinned_kernel.cfg and (if we want to make the latter be separate from pinning, see other=20 mail) /etc/default/grub.d/z_proxmox_next_boot.cfg seems like the cleaner approach compared to modifying the admin-managed=20 /etc/default/grub .. > * the 'root-device-id' part of the menu-entries is parsed from > /boot/grub/grug.cfg since it was stable (the same on all ESPs and in > /boot/grub), saves us from copying the part of "find device behind > /, mangle it if zfs/btrfs, call grub_probe a few times" part of > grub-mkconfig - and seems a bit more robust >=20 > Tested with a BIOS and an UEFI VM with / on ZFS. >=20 > [0] https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION/ >=20 > Signed-off-by: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>