From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4DB81FF0E9
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:47:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 872D62144B;
	Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:47:14 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:46:41 +0200
Message-Id: <DJZXOTWOJ154.MROP5GE2S763@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH storage v9 3/5] fix #7339: lvm: add discard action for
 removed volumes
From: "Lukas Sichert" <l.sichert@proxmox.com>
To: "Fiona Ebner" <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20260713160008.121125-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com>
 <20260713160008.121125-4-l.sichert@proxmox.com>
 <57cf0d8b-4fa7-4e00-b106-e8c997f102dc@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <57cf0d8b-4fa7-4e00-b106-e8c997f102dc@proxmox.com>
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784198782040
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.150 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_LOW        -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 low 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: JKQOP5QBXJUISDXG3WXBPUGZQOQ7PHFS
X-Message-ID-Hash: JKQOP5QBXJUISDXG3WXBPUGZQOQ7PHFS
X-MailFrom: l.sichert@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 <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On 2026-07-15 12:26, Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> wrote:
> Am 13.07.26 um 6:00 PM schrieb Lukas Sichert:

>> +sub assert_discard_supported {
>> +    my ($vgname, $on_remove) =3D @_;
>> +
>> +    return if !defined($on_remove);
>> +
>> +    my $on_remove_opts =3D PVE::JSONSchema::parse_property_string('on-v=
olume-remove', $on_remove);
>> +    if ($on_remove_opts->{discard}) {
>> +
>> +        my $vgs =3D lvm_vgs(1);
>> +        my $vg =3D $vgs->{$vgname};
>> +        die "no such volume group '$vgname'\n" if !$vg;
>> +
>> +        my $pvs =3D $vg->{pvs};
>> +        die "volume group '$vgname' has no physical volumes\n"
>> +            if !defined($pvs) || scalar($pvs->@*) =3D=3D 0;
>> +
>> +        # check if all the block devices configured to the volume group=
 support discard
>> +        for my $pv ($vg->{pvs}->@*) {
>> +
>> +            my $dev_path =3D abs_path($pv->{name}) // $pv->{name};
>> +
>> +            if ($dev_path =3D~ m!^(/dev/[A-Za-z0-9_+./=3D-]+)$!) {
>
> The information comes from LVM and is only used as the argument for
> lsblk, so should we untaint with .* ? Or is there a specific reason for
> this exact regex?

Yes, the regex is unnecessary. But IMO .+ is better than .*, because we sho=
uld not
match against '/dev/'.

>
>> +                $dev_path =3D $1; # untaint