From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE3481FF0B3 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 20:34:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A70BE2167F; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 20:34:01 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Fiona Ebner Subject: applied: [PATCH storage] fix #8076: zfs: activate volume: check for existence to fix regression with cloud-init disk Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 20:33:44 +0100 Message-ID: <179321601981.2227346.2612176278899910131.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20261007114904.132273-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20261007114904.132273-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793216034480 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.457 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: LKRCBPAPXHWK6RWQF3VYLX3SOEIQRMGW X-Message-ID-Hash: LKRCBPAPXHWK6RWQF3VYLX3SOEIQRMGW X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 Wed, 07 Oct 2026 13:48:57 +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Explicitly checking for existence during activation has the advantage > to catch issues earlier with a clearer error message. Note that the > implementation in Plugin.pm already explicitly checks for existence, > so this also aligns the implementation for ZFS closer to that. > > This also fixes #8076: For a zvol (i.e. 'raw' format), > zfs_wait_for_zvol_link() was called without first checking if the > volume actually exists. This means that for non-existent volumes, > activation would only fail after the timeout of 300 seconds in worker > context. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] fix #8076: zfs: activate volume: check for existence to fix regression with cloud-init disk https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-storage.git;a=commitdiff;h=a78ace0bf93c1f5046b61e275ece2eaeb3ad3301