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))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40CDB91C2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:45:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 205482C52C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:45:30 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:45:29 +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 CB77140ADE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:45:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <75e737ef-53d5-4157-f51c-c23c7c5ec52d@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:45:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
References: <20221117093932.343751-1-d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221117093932.343751-1-d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL -0.030 Adjusted
score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=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
=?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container 1/2] fix: clean up config when
invalid ostemplate is given
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 12:45:30 -0000
the "fix" is unsual for non #bugids, rather tag the subsystem you're modifying, e.g.:
restore: clean up config when invalid source archive is given
Am 17/11/2022 um 10:39 schrieb Daniel Tschlatscher:
> Before, if an invalid/non-existant ostemplate parameter was passed,
s/existant/existent/
And it's only relevant in the restore case or? as otherwise there isn't
happening anything in that code part fwict; maybe hint that here.
> the task would abort, but would leave an empty config file behind.
> This also applies to errors for invalid mount point configurations.
> In both cases, the empty config will now be removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
> ---
> src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm
> index 79aecaa..7cc64af 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm
> @@ -443,7 +443,14 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
> }
> }
> };
> - die "$emsg $@" if $@;
> +
> + if (my $reason = $@) {
> + if (!$same_container_exists) {
> + eval { PVE::LXC::Config->destroy_config($vmid) };
we already have such a section below, maybe you could move that out in the general cleanup
and set a flag similarly to $remove_lock, e.g., $destroy_config_on_error then in the error
path of the outher locked call it would look something like:
if ($destroy_config_on_error) {
eval { PVE::LXC::Config->destroy_config($vmid) };
warn $@ if $@;
} elsif ($remove_lock) {
PVE::LXC::Config->remove_lock($vmid, 'create');
}
that way you wouldn't need to override remove_lock either. Not a strong preference
towards that, so just throwing the idea out there.
> + $remove_lock = 0;
> + }
> + die "$emsg $reason";
> + }
>
> # up until here we did not modify the container, besides the lock
> $remove_lock = 0;