From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2595D1FF191 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:33:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5FDF734D5; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:34:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:33:27 -0400 To: Proxmox VE development discussion MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Post: From: Andrei Perepiolkin via pve-devel Precedence: list Cc: Andrei Perepiolkin X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: Subject: [pve-devel] Consistency in volume deletion in process of concurrent VM deletion Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7792670806920798632==" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" --===============7792670806920798632== Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: X-Original-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Delivered-To: pve-devel@lists.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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C16FBD320C for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:34:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A035C348F for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:33:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:33:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=open-e.com; s=s1-ionos; t=1761060810; x=1761665610; i=andrei.perepiolkin@open-e.com; bh=1NnhIe90aKtz7kcbP3QMM70mn8DyExVSJEk11izliJw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:To:From:Subject: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=c2PwTBvBzQCCRRCuGbErGeb3v07hkcJ5dwliVIxYpiFb/t/d69s/JZM3NRTPQ6JE 40JCnuHoMJawAo2kJ9Ip2USVNmNoNps8N5pMx/9Vv+9msKz7vue5CE2wO10AC69xo FvZnJUu50s1KFqoLiByYgZPBwi+Bp+kddTy0kEgvMMmaJmRx97nomsWe8ahnQQGcY s8/v5uf3ZRdzIGpanLtHwsIuReMFokKOwthtQD2bNRcwHiUr8/XJaq+x33FfTiV9K j7doBzeLgnKls4KdYZi/fOm6C7Eir8+4SjxTG4LrU5g3oM/Uer1dH1HEIkXn2eUYQ nDV+SM/oY4lGFwHwrA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 55c96926-9e95-11ee-ae09-1f7a4046a0f6 Received: from [10.137.0.75] ([149.102.246.34]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue009 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MG9c4-1uz7QL3TWW-00GZbW for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:33:30 +0200 Message-ID: <7cf85c82-28d9-4883-9826-39e60bfa3450@open-e.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:33:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion From: Andrei Perepiolkin Subject: [pve-devel] Consistency in volume deletion in process of concurrent VM deletion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:EPTBLG+jmaddrjt7xAA+rAGmyWaUS2RXUPV08J15qZH+AGiIt4z Lj8WDlIyrRJbWWYzd9FdRNsQF3NB8uqcyVsTO2+h9dLCBWFlAyG3D3zk7UFfA7C7Aj+XZY7 6JsUlF31Z7XeBa/jj+ta1m2G8S1/fZDx7NRWJD7rOn37daYiw9t8OPkyqpsn+v44ROixWED TSLrsaODm5Cxbbjs0AXOg== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:7OGJ1XeTZEI=;NRC67qfvYaCSRyTdw8vCYrErFaj NbIAZHe00jMuD88lWfcKPBYTrQ/+za/av9VWvRYkzYYzbfs8wi/uHtJTUMNYrvXLGUQJK15Vi AYbKIKRqR7UKrpFVfgAXIE9QqD0uKcIfL63UYFQ89aBhyUQY4Ha+G61Cg3yeekntpuH5D7idx T/V4kCHsxc441aP4BiPrvSRsNDq02xhMrGqmebTKy8uT65ajnpCvLyyHn8a1YY+gF6IE8Dw10 giOqwuhZE9HsL3xaznYfPGae7b8eGpO2GRR9fjkaZc5UWADdg5vnmaQ+iAd9gMxo+S8s6kqdG LllZjmU0637MoU3eetGELcF4heCvfph4UDgEjf7OGhf0jEeDwUo0uFp0jMpyPWyPoZr5xriDg KziQ73GrJlTVcTHNWLNEfF8N70ecr969oXtm7JFccSi2WzMLqWCauLxys9tzFqt1fFj+aVeoc kw7jLBTDHa+c4fQ646rU3+53KLNndustB+m4zwN9cfeVxOXsNw67v4vsBSVTKX+C2tvQ3mBZ+ Rr2P3SBD6a2Mgn0lVK7SYDKBEGzbiG2SpCPh6+WIvs5ULYDZQEuopaeQ6n0a6OE9AeVU+b7e7 nmerwf5bLNRs9A1YeLHyGwJMYVbfVF3UTKugMbXJ6VQ/5sLrBId2qCREpsaVLiiHzxXE0FnlF l1XdhQyoPB0w+VJ1MXr4f4hapjYfK6u3nkYYXxH1FC2yqJOAUMQz0yj+dC93sgIK6XhXSs6Nh or73dlEKdt1IH5jSJYq2F8mHTG1hddFj295b+z6m+X7dp+dgdhr873+167I7lptsKY4Qe3BQC BNMpo9d0mB3AceCyGgChLeNQgbYXSj+Q6Qh0EjpOCQHjj+chYqiLsc2FBoWPYZIvKN2teBj97 XTieWmm0qEPLIdgllhDVNT/awK0Ol1ugxfmxQ0sWEkZtEPOHq6AaLVrfb/FbgO455qXQCbK6o SAOz+0GoD+54cQitiY3zAHvnvs+ZEPGFjCVaNm2s9usDw7cBUrB8IIcsxU+Ks/L/LkZiVvniC NiiQvZ55LrtCwlX5/92J6b49VVA1bF4B5ATM56IX2ccVJT20+A05KyEl68rLmfUZVmRaoMHDu z6lNF6zFB1XthAoz82LNZilHAn2BtNHU7///fmCSjBIWZqv6GbU+CqA/LMo+BztOPQcGewDLo NWYzyBVZ6HJeGUkOf6vP5nA8AuUxCe02dfyqZ7daW+CrrH7Pp44LnJUKZJ+7uIiQ3WQILp/4s jCrnTcwtENJtuI3J5GtPcKlhZDWWB1yVzEtxgpYEjMqu4+j05IiWp3N3vuRO5nGJjPkrB5H3+ ywozNOScg3SdQDfIpAfFpvqgRV0srOttZFvXEDbnwqbE8hLoPAYQVp4vHrzFLsnntaaJuRH0d Mm2fVV38o2qlZCQ7aFQzh/+UZaDiowqomo6yNJIPWqN2kBWBElTZeaj+1Q25/B7W3leunPkO9 4RkwTrl3aTI8QgaApnyg7Nxjvs5YCQC7ClRZuc8/i6l+9oPZCWuRsNUtiBceH/PJ+NQtSDjqy 8FQN6nPqxagKzWYEdxjg0JFOdv0slAFZGxrE9LxDAbIt7+b1T1qI3Ty/eRbbdO2cr+xeQE007 sfERFl69feDsK0OaBpXnwVfgyuiBZP5on71ok/0P19QtcBDWrqqjvfpjL00+QaZHOPCiEdVoJ TDN7s8krxDAdjnU9yGJRPZCau0rdyvHtat57t7b5aVHw== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.007 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5 0.001 Excellent reputation (+5) RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 0.001 Mailspike good senders RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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. [open-e.com,proxmox.com] Hi Proxmox Community, There might be a potential consistency problem with Proxmox vm deletion. If Proxmox receives multiple concurrent VM deletion requests, where each= =20 VM has multiple disks located on shared storage. The deletion process may fail or hang when attempting to acquire the=20 storage=20 lock(https://github.com/proxmox/pve-storage/blob/master/src/PVE/Storage.pm= #L1196C1-L1209C7). ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout ... Eventually, the VM configuration files in /etc/pve are removed, but some= =20 VM disks may remain. Additionally, the Web UI shows all deletions as successful, even though=20 some disks were not deleted. In my opinion, a VM should either be deleted completely=E2=80=94including = all=20 dependent resources=E2=80=94or the deletion should fail, leaving the VM=20 configuration file with an updated state. Im reproducing this by: =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 for i in `seq 401 420` ; do=C2=A0 qm clone 104 $i --na= me "win-$i" --full=20 =2D-storage jdss-Pool-2 ; done; =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 for i in `seq 401 410` ; do=C2=A0 qm destroy $i=20 =2D-destroy-unreferenced-disks 1 --purge 1 &=C2=A0 done ; Have to notice that ssh session that I use to conduct 'qm destroy'=20 command get terminated by Proxmox. Ive duplicated as a bug at:=20 https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D6957 Is this a bug and will it be addressed in near future? Best regards, Andrei Perepiolkin --===============7792670806920798632== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel --===============7792670806920798632==--