From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 603DE74371
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 46441C9E6
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 51378C9D9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1AE7E41C80
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1aa9184c-9e53-f62a-68f3-256c69a79eba@proxmox.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/88.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210415101057.2836-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210415101057.2836-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.040 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
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
URIBL_BLACK 3 Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist [drive.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] drive: volume in-use check: fix
fallback path comparison
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: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 15:30:33 -0000
On 15.04.21 12:10, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> When checking whether a volume is still referenced by a snapshot, the volid
> itself is first checked. When the volid is different, we fall back to comparing
> the path.
>
> As the first value to be compared is a volume's path, the second value better be
> a volume's path too, and not a snapshot's path.
>
> See also 77019edfe0c190c949cdc0b0e3b4ad2ca37313b3 for historical context.
>
> The error that led me here:
> * had a VM with ZFS over iSCSI storage with an exsiting snapshot
> * add new unused drive
> * try to remove the unsued drive
> * fails, because ZFS (not Pool!) Plugin does not support snapshot paths.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm b/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm
> index 01ea8d7..9016a43 100644
> --- a/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm
> +++ b/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm
> @@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ sub is_volume_in_use {
> next if !$storeid;
> my $scfg = PVE::Storage::storage_config($storecfg, $storeid, 1);
> next if !$scfg;
> - return 1 if $path eq PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $drive->{file}, $snapname);
> + return 1 if $path eq PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $drive->{file});
makes the whole $snapname param of that closure unused, which seems OK as $cref
holds the actual info, FWICT after a quick look.
So, if that patch is sound it should probably remove the $snapname from $scan_config
closure too.
> }
> }
> }
>