From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 5497D7041E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:00:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3CDCFB431
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:00:03 +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 48B04B426
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:00:02 +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 BDB76439BB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <ab2baa53-3501-2c27-8ceb-21239ffb7dba@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:00:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20220523105425.3025242-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220523105425.3025242-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.850 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
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 Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -1.732 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] rbd: get_rbd_dev_path: return
/dev/rbd path only if cluster matches
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: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:00:03 -0000
ping?
On 5/23/22 12:54, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
> The changes in cfe46e2d4a97a83f1bbe6ad656e6416399309ba2 git not catch
> all situations.
> In the case of a guest having 2 disk images with the same name on a pool
> with the same name but in two different ceph clusters we still had
> issues when starting it. The first disk got mapped as expected. The
> second disk did not get mapped because we returned the old $path to
> "/dev/rbd/<pool>/<image>" because it already existed from the first
> disk.
>
> In the case that only the "old" /dev/rbd path exists and we do not have
> the /dev/rbd-pve/<cluster>/... path available, we now check if the
> cluster fsid used by that rbd device matches the one we expect. If it
> does, then we are in the situation that the image has been mapped before
> the new rbd-pve udev rule was introduced. If it does not, then we have
> the situation of an ambiguous mapping in /dev/rbd and return the
> $pve_path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm
> index 3511914..eeeaf3f 100644
> --- a/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ package PVE::Storage::RBDPlugin;
> use strict;
> use warnings;
>
> +use Cwd qw(abs_path);
> use IO::File;
> use JSON;
> use Net::IP;
> @@ -13,7 +14,7 @@ use PVE::JSONSchema qw(get_standard_option);
> use PVE::ProcFSTools;
> use PVE::RADOS;
> use PVE::Storage::Plugin;
> -use PVE::Tools qw(run_command trim);
> +use PVE::Tools qw(run_command trim file_read_firstline);
>
> use base qw(PVE::Storage::Plugin);
>
> @@ -66,7 +67,13 @@ my sub get_rbd_dev_path {
> my $pve_path = "/dev/rbd-pve/${cluster_id}/${rbd_path}";
> my $path = "/dev/rbd/${rbd_path}";
>
> - return $path if !-e $pve_path && -e $path; # mapped before rbd-pve udev rule existed
> + if (!-e $pve_path && -e $path) {
> + # possibly mapped before rbd-pve rule existed
> + my $real_dev = abs_path($path);
> + my ($rbd_id) = ($real_dev =~ m|/dev/rbd([0-9]+)$|);
> + my $dev_cluster_id = file_read_firstline("/sys/devices/rbd/${rbd_id}/cluster_fsid");
> + return $path if $cluster_id eq $dev_cluster_id;
> + }
> return $pve_path;
> }
>