From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <p.hufnagl@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 28ECE985DB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C5C53942
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:27 +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 A913242FBD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:27 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <63532d84-0ded-42cf-a286-c515e6f33ebc@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20231114142714.27578-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<a3e7c9cc-50f8-448f-b5d4-e6178933f03d@proxmox.com>
<0c9cd0e3-fecc-453c-9238-8dc249b0a0d0@proxmox.com>
<f9ed9a3f-d8d5-441a-bd16-f8a65157e1dd@proxmox.com>
<4e09708f-4259-4784-99c8-7e8115a0eb56@proxmox.com>
<b0758df6-5eed-4862-90d2-3cd547ffa966@proxmox.com>
From: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <b0758df6-5eed-4862-90d2-3cd547ffa966@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.059 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] fix #5008: prevent adding pbs
storage with invalid namespace
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 10:40:29 -0000
On 11/15/23 11:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 15/11/2023 um 11:05 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl:
>>
>>
>> On 11/15/23 10:52, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> Am 15/11/2023 um 10:37 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl:
>>>> On 11/15/23 09:31, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>>>> Am 14.11.23 um 15:27 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl:
>>>>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm
>>>>>> index 4320974..aceb2c4 100644
>>>>>> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm
>>>>>> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm
>>>>>> @@ -817,6 +817,17 @@ sub scan_datastores {
>>>>>> return $response;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +sub scan_namespaces {
>>>>>> + my ($scfg, $datastore, $password) = @_;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + my $conn = pbs_api_connect($scfg, $password);
>>>>>
>>>>> Not super important, but would be nice to have a way to re-use the same
>>>>> connection in scan_datastores() and here, since activate_storage() will
>>>>> call both of them.
>>>>
>>>> scan_datastores() seem to be called somewhere else as well. I see if I
>>>> can find a way to reuse the connection but not break the code there.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the long run it maybe could be better to have an explicit check_availability
>>> hook, but IMO it's a bit late in the release cycle for that as this needs a bit
>>> extra care, especially w.r.t. external plugins and our ABI compat.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, as workaround we might be able to do this check in the on_add_hook and
>>> on_update_hook methods for now.
>>
>> I am planning on introducing a function called "connect_if_none" that
>> checks if it gets passed a connection and if so, return it. If it gets
>> passed undef, it will establish a connection and return that one.
>>
>> That way a user can simply write something like
>>
>> my $conn = connect_if_none($scfg, $password, $conn);
>>
>> and not worry about it.
>
>
> not sure how above fits to my comment at all...
> Connection re-use is not the real issue here, doing it senslessy on every
> activate is..
>
> And connect_if_none is a rather generic/undescriptive name and still would
> not solve re-use if done in different method calls, so a rather for only
> a very limited use case where one can just pass $conn around directly.
I can rename it.
I am not certain if I understand correctly. Aren't those hooks
trigered after adding a storage? The issue I am resolving here is
before the storage is actually added.