From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 9DDAD7498C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  2 Jun 2021 13:51:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8F1BCAA3B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  2 Jun 2021 13:51:28 +0200 (CEST)
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 id D9F65AA30
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  2 Jun 2021 13:51:23 +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 A6799466BE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed,  2 Jun 2021 13:51:23 +0200 (CEST)
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, l.stechauner@proxmox.com
References: <20210527122331.86302-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
 <635d46fc-9ac5-5674-a33c-b5319d805b64@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <906b20b9-970d-b056-7f5b-a8e728228b85@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:51:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <635d46fc-9ac5-5674-a33c-b5319d805b64@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.287 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           -0.613 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [qemuserver.pm, proxmox.com, lxc.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES v3 container/qemu-server] fix #3421:
 allow custom storage plugins to support rootfs
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, 02 Jun 2021 11:51:28 -0000

Since I just ran into it: It also breaks (at least container) backups 
when there is a volume on a misconfigured storage.

Am 02.06.21 um 09:29 schrieb Fabian Ebner:
> There's an edge case with 'restart' migration for containers that breaks 
> because of the new content type on startup checks:
> If there is an already running container with a volume on storage A, and 
> now storage A is reconfigured to not support 'rootdir' anymore, then 
> migration itself does work, but there'll be an error on startup on the 
> remote node. It would be nicer if the error would appear at the start of 
> the migration already.
> 
> For VMs (with 'online' migration) the situation is not as bad, because 
> the remote start happens earlier, so the VM will still be running on the 
> original node after the error.
> 
> And one can offline migrate such unstartable guests around ;)
> 
> IMHO, if we add the checks for content type on startup, it's all the 
> more reason to have content type checks for migration as well. For VM 
> migration with the targetstorage option, there already are such checks.
> 
> 
> It's a tangential problem of course, your patches look fine to me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> 
> Am 27.05.21 um 14:23 schrieb Lorenz Stechauner:
>> changes to v2:
>> * typo s/supoort/support/
>> * more detailed error messages
>> * implemented check also for vms
>>
>> pve-container:
>>
>> Lorenz Stechauner (1):
>>    fix #3421: allow custom storage plugins to support rootfs
>>
>>   src/PVE/LXC.pm | 30 ++++++++++++------------------
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> qemu-server:
>>
>> Lorenz Stechauner (1):
>>    vm_start: check if storages of volumes support content images
>>
>>   PVE/QemuServer.pm | 7 +++++++
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
> 
>