From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB711FF0C1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:22:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6BC1221386; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:22:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:22:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH container] fix: #7148: check CT protection before reassigning volume To: Lukas Sichert , Jakob Klocker , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260601115240.36497-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787754134834 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.777 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_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium 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: 5XECHEVLPPHK5KIXN7XKMMTYPE6LLQFV X-Message-ID-Hash: 5XECHEVLPPHK5KIXN7XKMMTYPE6LLQFV X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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 List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 05.06.26 um 4:26 PM schrieb Lukas Sichert: > I was able to reproduce the Problem, the Patch worked for me. > > One thing I found, which is only indirectly related: > One can't move storage to a protected container, but one can move > storage from a protected container to an unprotected container, which to > my intuition seems wrong. > Is this expected behaviour? The documentation agrees that this is wrong: protection: (default = 0) Sets the protection flag of the container. This will prevent the CT or CT’s disk remove/update operation. And looking into the code, all direct config changes to mpX/unusedX/rootfs are prohibited. So reassign should be prohibited in both directions. For VMs, the flag is documented as: protection: (default = 0) Sets the protection flag of the VM. This will disable the remove VM and remove disk operations. Adding disks to a protected VM works, but removing a disk does not. So reassign away from a protected VM should also be prohibited. It currently isn't. If we want to further restrict adding disks to a protected VM, that should be done for the next major release, but I'm not fully sure we should go for that. @Jakob: could you send follow-ups for those issues? > > Tested-by: Lukas Sichert > > On 2026-06-01 13:52, Jakob Klocker wrote: > >> When reassigning a volume, check the destination config before >> removing the volume from the source config. >> >> Link: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7148 >> Signed-off-by: Jakob Klocker >> --- >> src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm >> index 88067dd..af01de0 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm >> @@ -2791,6 +2791,8 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ >> if !PVE::Storage::storage_can_replicate($storecfg, $storeid, $format); >> } >> >> + PVE::LXC::Config->check_protection($target_conf, "can't move volume '$target_mpkey' to CT $target_vmid"); >> + >> return ($source_conf, $target_conf, $drive); >> }; >> >> -- >> 2.47.3 > > > > >