From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 457831FF141 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:47:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1DA0136453; Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:47:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:47:21 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH guest-common v2 1/1] helpers: exec hookscript: add optional parameters To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20260123132611.974310-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20260123132611.974310-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260123132611.974310-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1770979568.hk0p54ucxy.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770979641524 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.047 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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 Message-ID-Hash: NGXEIPTHKCKVES7WODBGNSRIEPAS5BIS X-Message-ID-Hash: NGXEIPTHKCKVES7WODBGNSRIEPAS5BIS X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On January 23, 2026 2:25 pm, Dominik Csapak wrote: > sometimes we may want to call the hookscript with additional parameters > in some phases, e.g. we want to call it for each pci device that was > prepared before starting with the correct uuid or pci id. >=20 > Add these new parameters to the environment instead of the positional > parameters of the hookscript, since that is more future proof and we get > a key/value pair instead of just the position. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > changes from v1: > * use a hash instead of a list for the parameters, and give them to the > hookscript via the environment instead of positional parameters, like > we do for the vzdump hookscript >=20 > src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm b/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm > index f8d112b..b4122e6 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm > @@ -115,14 +115,22 @@ sub check_hookscript { > } > =20 > sub exec_hookscript { > - my ($conf, $vmid, $phase, $stop_on_error) =3D @_; > + my ($conf, $vmid, $phase, $stop_on_error, $params) =3D @_; > =20 > return if !$conf->{hookscript}; > =20 > + $params //=3D {}; > + > eval { > my $hookscript =3D check_hookscript($conf->{hookscript}); > die $@ if $@; > =20 > + local %ENV; > + > + for my $key (keys $params->%*) { > + $ENV{ uc($key) } =3D $params->{$key}; this should really have some sort of static prefix, both to avoid clashes, and to allow the hookscript to find all such parameters (e.g. for logging purposes) by filtering all set env variables. PVE_HOOKSCRIPT_PARAM_... or something similar would do the trick? > + } > + > PVE::Tools::run_command([$hookscript, $vmid, $phase]); > }; > if (my $err =3D $@) { > --=20 > 2.47.3 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel >=20 >=20 >=20