From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Cc: "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
"Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC qemu-server 1/1] partially fix #4501: migration: start vm: move port reservation and usage closer together
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:21:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <o2c5komnd77okwarvdrv77kdw3tuxzmtllypzlfilzbb7nsw2o@gvzgbwycpj3c> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <810f3423-7f55-4915-96c8-550241b191de@proxmox.com>
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 11:22:46AM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 15.11.23 um 11:12 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
> >
> > What about adding an option to `next_migrate_port()` to actually return
> > the open socket to keep the reservation?
> >
> > Also, did we consider passing the file descriptor through to qemu via
> > `-incoming fd:$number`?
> >
>
> Sounds promising :) We do invoke QEMU after forking. Is there any
> pitfall with that and passing the fd? Or is it enough if we simply don't
> touch it or close it in the parent?
We just have to explicitly remove the CLOEXEC flag from the fd before
the exec() happens.
Since we use `run_command` for the exec, I've been wondering if maybe
`run_command` itself should get an `fds => [ numbers ]` list it should
drop the CLOEXEC on before opening the subprocess and then restoring the
original flags afterwards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-15 11:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-14 14:02 [pve-devel] [RFC qemu-server/common] fix #4501: improve port reservation for QEMU TCP migration Fiona Ebner
2023-11-14 14:02 ` [pve-devel] [RFC qemu-server 1/1] partially fix #4501: migration: start vm: move port reservation and usage closer together Fiona Ebner
2023-11-15 8:55 ` Fabian Grünbichler
2023-11-15 10:12 ` Wolfgang Bumiller
2023-11-15 10:22 ` Fiona Ebner
2023-11-15 11:21 ` Wolfgang Bumiller [this message]
2023-11-14 14:02 ` [pve-devel] [RFC common 1/2] partially fix #4501: next unused port: bump port reservation expiretime Fiona Ebner
2023-11-15 8:51 ` Fabian Grünbichler
2023-11-14 14:02 ` [pve-devel] [RFC common 2/2] fix #4501: next unused port: work around issue with too short expiretime Fiona Ebner
2023-11-14 14:13 ` Fiona Ebner
2023-11-15 8:51 ` Fabian Grünbichler
2023-11-15 10:16 ` Fiona Ebner
2023-11-15 10:27 ` Fabian Grünbichler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=o2c5komnd77okwarvdrv77kdw3tuxzmtllypzlfilzbb7nsw2o@gvzgbwycpj3c \
--to=w.bumiller@proxmox.com \
--cc=f.ebner@proxmox.com \
--cc=f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com \
--cc=pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.