From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 188AF1FF168
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:07:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 73F64855F;
Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:07:27 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:06:53 +0100
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <hjrmzxu77qslue6xrezepccddwkphyvvkgodzm22mfxyze3hhv@mjk5q7ge63bg>
References: <20241209104606.263045-2-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<5cettqvqg6i6y2cgihynjjirl4vyl6c5l3ewbn4ydhccpgc6ac@aj5yojr624d4>
<yyzfsgf2p5k52fk67lsu6jzu42egxjqnfgywuermm75ijm7cwg@v4x56bymmlxq>
<2cugfnfjfv2robousxhdshdu3rxmyg3bnfdazoyagvn5gglatl@6x4trum24nak>
<iidtwwpusvqkcqw6sh7e7mqqnlhu37icz5k77ps5wro2nenr7b@gqi7k24dsw4n>
<4iymtwe46mmc7zn6f2erjkfxhal76ma2xy2fh2d4rk2vaqpik4@7n363ok7f5yf>
<xgi5aiiutasg2353yvgfalsvmq3at6ivsm3gpny42dce3a7mj7@brxsvu2dduhp>
<j4r7odcmrgzwjcjtofsrtu3dp6mo4cwl2rjozpxsf4ytze5f5s@65euvf7zi2z7>
<sb6fqudqt4jrewfugeafluk2czmzh34zkzgzlg4aadtuhinsle@ds3vqwr2wypo>
<2yyeufgkcyl3nhkztrynakfbj5q5s35afo4mpkpdowjab2pxam@dufv5c2fpui3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2yyeufgkcyl3nhkztrynakfbj5q5s35afo4mpkpdowjab2pxam@dufv5c2fpui3>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.081 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox v2 1/4] log: rename/move init
functions
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>, pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:21:19PM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > I cooked up a simple builder type thingy to build layers:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > struct LogBuilder {
> > > > > global_log_level: LevelFilter,
> > > > > layer: Vec<
> > > > > Box<dyn tracing_subscriber::Layer<tracing_subscriber::Registry> + Send + Sync + 'static>,
> > > > > >,
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the implementation:
> > > > >
> > > > > impl LogBuilder {
> > > > > pub fn from_env(env_var: &str, default_log_level: LevelFilter) -> LogBuilder {
> > > > > let log_level = get_env_variable(env_var, default_log_level);
> > > > > LogBuilder {
> > > > > global_log_level: log_level,
> > > > > layer: vec![],
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > pub fn journald_or_stderr(mut self) -> LogBuilder {
> > > > > self.layer.push(
> > > > > journald_or_stderr_layer()
> > > > > .with_filter(self.global_log_level)
> > > > > .boxed(),
> > > > > );
> > > > > self
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > pub fn journald_or_stderr_on_logcontext_and_error(mut self) -> LogBuilder {
> > > > > self.layer.push(
> > > > > journald_or_stderr_layer()
> > > > > .with_filter(filter_fn(|metadata| {
> > > > > !LogContext::exists() || *metadata.level() == Level::ERROR
> > > > > }))
> > > > > .with_filter(self.global_log_level)
> > > > > .boxed(),
> > > > > );
> > > > > self
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > //...
> > > > >
> > > > > pub fn init(self) -> Result<(), anyhow::Error> {
> > > > > let registry = tracing_subscriber::registry().with(self.layer);
> > > > > tracing::subscriber::set_global_default(registry)?;
> > > > >
> > > > > LogTracer::init_with_filter(self.global_log_level.as_log())?;
> > > > > Ok(())
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > We could place this in a new builder module and then have the
> > > > > product-specific functions (e.g. init_pve_log, init_perlmod_log,
> > > > > init_pbs_log, etc.) in the init module.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm...
> > > > Those names are a bit long, and still as specific as before, so I'm not
> > > > sure we win a lot either way.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering - if we really have so many specific cases - do we really
> > > > need them implemented in this crate, rather than where they are used?
> > > > How many different types of logging layers do we have and where atm?
> > >
> > > We currently have:
> > > 1) journald (with stderr fallback)
> >
> > => builder.journald_logging()
> >
> > (the fallback could just be implied, or do we ever not want that?)
>
> true, I don't think we want to fail anywhere if there is no journald
> anyway.
>
> > > 2) stderr
> >
> > => builder.stderr_logging()
> >
> > > 3) stderr (with pve formatting)
> >
> > => builder.pve_logging() (#[cfg(feature = "pve")]?)
>
> Maybe stderr_pve_logging? I'd like to mention 'stderr' somewhere in the
> case we add some different pve-format logging (e.g. pve-tasklog).
Sounds good.
>
> > > 4) pbs tasklog
> > ^ I assume (4) is the "tasklog-or-journald" case?
> > Not sure where (1) is really the right choice.
> >
> > Does (4) exist anywhere other than in the API daemons?
> >
> > => builder.task_logging()
> >
> > (the journal-if-not-in-task part could be implied - or do we ever need
> > to combine the tasklog part differently?)
>
> Yes, in the proxmox-backup-manager. There we use stderr for all the
> normal logs and the tasklogger for when we a task is started.
(I think this could be considered a special case, but if its case is
covered by the builder that's fine.)
>
> > > But the problem is we have different combinations and filters as well:
> > > journald and stderr (perlmod), stderr and pbs tasklog (but only when we
> > > are in a tasklog or when the level is error) (pbs-client), etc.
> >
> > ^ Why is "pbs-client" the example here? IMO this sounds like the API
> > daemons. The pbs-client *CLI* tool certainly should just log to stderr,
> > and the "crate" otherwise doesn't decide this.
>
> Oops, my bad I meant the proxmox-backup-manager.
>
> > > The logging gets initiated in:
> >
> > (list below is reordered)
> >
> > > * pbs proxy daemon
> > > * pbs api daemon
> >
> > ^ API daemons - so those are case (4) - are they different from one
> > another?
>
> Nope, this is case 4. (To be exact case 1 + 4, journald + tasklog.)
> Also you need to add filters here, this isn't just a "print everything
> to journald", we only print to journald when the level is error or we
> are *not* in a tasklog.
I did say 4 ;-)
But okay, the filters are annoying.
>
> > > * pbs proxmox-file-restore
> >
> > ^ The VM side? Not sure what it needs, but seems special-enough to have
> > its own code, unless we just log to the journal anyway
>
> As far as I remember this one should print to stderr only. (This is
> wrong in this patch.)
>
> > > * pbs tape pmt
> > > * pbs tape pmtx
> > > * pbs client
> > > * pbs pxar
> > > * pbs proxmox-backup-debug
> > > * pbs proxmox-backup-manager
> > > * pbs proxmox-backup-tape
> > > * pbs sg-tape-cmd
> >
> > ^ IIRC all of these are CLI tools and should therefore all be case (2) -
> > although I don't know about how the tape stuff works.
> > If they do anything else, it would be good to know why and have this
> > documented either in proxmox-log or in their logging-init functions.
>
> All except the proxmox-backup-manager as far as I can see, because that
> one starts pbs tasks directly.
>
> > > * pbs proxmox-daily-update
> >
> > The 'daily-update' may be a special case and could use the journal
> > directly, but may as well be stderr->journald via its `.service`.
> > But, yeah, obviously it would make actual tracing/debugging easier with
> > a proper journald-logger here. So another user of case (1).
>
> Agree.
>
> > > * perlmod
> > ^ For the lack of a better place (as pve, pmg and nftables code probably
> > all want to share it), having this as a special function in proxmox-log
> > makes some sense I suppose (but could be feature-guarded).
>
> There is already a shared common::init_logger function in perlmod I think.
I don't think the nft firewall code (and potential additional new
rust-only things we might add in the future) can access this. We have a
`proxmox-ve-rs.git` now, but that one won't be used by *pmg*.
Anyway, that part is for later.
>
> > > Exposing the builder directly without any helper functions would be fine
> > > as well I reckon. The downside is that the initiation gets more
> > > "complicated", e.g. (the pbs daemon):
> > >
> > > LogBuilder::from_env("PBS_LOG", LevelFilter::INFO)
> > > .journald_on_no_tasklog_or_error()
> > > .tasklog().init()?;
> >
> > So yes this is probably okay to have, but I really don't think we need
> > these huge names - like I said, it doesn't make sense to me that
> > `.tasklog()` should be combined with anything other than this exact one
> > other thing anyway, so the middle line there could just be left out IMO.
>
> See above.
> Also either we use a helper function which does everything for us (e.g.
> init_perlmod_logger, init_journald_and_tasklog) or we use the builder
> where we *need* to mention every layer separately. Otherwise you have different
> builder functions, some which add a single layer and others that add
> multiple layers + magic (which IMO is a mess).
Yeah. I suppose we can proceed with the builder.
It might be good to have the 4 types above summarised in the builder
type's doc comments.
As for a builder *module* (which you mentioned in an earlier mail) - I
*think* API-wise, the builder type itself could very well live (as in be
re-exported) at the top level, but implementation wise it could be in
its own module for sure, if it makes the code more tidy/organized in
your opinion.
_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel