[pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager 05/13] views: add implementation for view filters

[Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>]

This commit adds the filter implementation for the previously defined
ViewFilterConfig type.

There are include/exclude rules for the following properties:
  - (global) resource-id
  - resource pool
  - resource type
  - remote
  - tags

The rules are interpreted as follows:
- no rules: everything matches
- only includes: included resources match
- only excluded: everything *but* the excluded resources match
- include and exclude: excludes are applied *after* includes, meaning if
  one has a `include-remote foo` and `exclude-remote foo` at the same
  time, the remote `foo` will never match

Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
---
 server/src/lib.rs               |   1 +
 server/src/views/mod.rs         |   1 +
 server/src/views/view_filter.rs | 225 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 227 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 server/src/views/mod.rs
 create mode 100644 server/src/views/view_filter.rs

diff --git a/server/src/lib.rs b/server/src/lib.rs
index 964807eb..0f25aa71 100644
--- a/server/src/lib.rs
+++ b/server/src/lib.rs
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ pub mod remote_tasks;
 pub mod remote_updates;
 pub mod resource_cache;
 pub mod task_utils;
+pub mod views;
 
 pub mod connection;
 pub mod pbs_client;
diff --git a/server/src/views/mod.rs b/server/src/views/mod.rs
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9a2856a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/server/src/views/mod.rs
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+pub mod view_filter;
diff --git a/server/src/views/view_filter.rs b/server/src/views/view_filter.rs
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..656b5523
--- /dev/null
+++ b/server/src/views/view_filter.rs
@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+use anyhow::Error;
+
+use pdm_api_types::{
+    resource::{Resource, ResourceType},
+    views::ViewFilterConfig,
+};
+
+/// Get view filter with a given ID.
+///
+/// Returns an error if the view filter configuration file could not be read, or
+/// if the view filter with the provided ID does not exist.
+pub fn get_view_filter(filter_id: &str) -> Result<ViewFilter, Error> {
+    pdm_config::views::get_view_filter_config(filter_id).map(ViewFilter::new)
+}
+
+/// View filter implementation.
+///
+/// Given a [`ViewFilterConfig`], this struct can be used to check if a resource/remote/node
+/// matches the filter rules.
+#[derive(Clone)]
+pub struct ViewFilter {
+    config: ViewFilterConfig,
+}
+
+impl ViewFilter {
+    /// Create a new [`ViewFiler`].
+    pub fn new(config: ViewFilterConfig) -> Self {
+        Self { config }
+    }
+
+    /// Check if a [`Resource`] matches the filter rules.
+    pub fn resource_matches(&self, remote: &str, resource: &Resource) -> bool {
+        // NOTE: Establishing a cache here is not worth the effort at the moment, evaluation of
+        // rules is *very* fast.
+        //
+        // Some experiments were performed with a cache that works roughly as following:
+        //   - HashMap<ViewId, HashMap<ResourceId, bool>> in a mutex
+        //   - Cache invalidated if view-filter config digest changed
+        //   - Cache invalidated if certain resource fields such as tags or resource pools change
+        //     from the last time (also with a digest-based implementation)
+        //
+        // Experimented with the `fake-remote` feature and and 15000 guests showed that
+        // caching was only faster than direct evaluation if the number of rules in the
+        // ViewFilterConfig is *huge* (e.g. >1000 `include-resource-id` entries). But even for those,
+        // direct evaluation was always plenty fast, with evaluation times ~20ms for *all* resources.
+        //
+        // -> for any *realistic* filter config, we should be good with direct evaluation, as long
+        // as we don't add any filter rules which are very expensive to evaluate.
+
+        let resource_data = resource.into();
+
+        self.check_if_included(remote, &resource_data)
+            && !self.check_if_excluded(remote, &resource_data)
+    }
+
+    /// Check if a remote can be safely skipped based on the filter rule definition.
+    ///
+    /// When there are `include-remote` or `exclude-remote` rules, we can use these to
+    /// check if a remote needs to be considered at all.
+    pub fn can_skip_remote(&self, remote: &str) -> bool {
+        let no_includes = self.config.include_remote.is_empty();
+        let any_include = self.config.include_remote.iter().any(|r| r == remote);
+        let any_exclude = self.config.exclude_remote.iter().any(|r| r == remote);
+
+        (!no_includes && !any_include) || any_exclude
+    }
+
+    /// Check if a node is matched by the filter rules.
+    ///
+    /// This is equivalent to checking an actual node resource.
+    pub fn is_node_included(&self, remote: &str, node: &str) -> bool {
+        let resource_data = ResourceData {
+            resource_type: ResourceType::Node,
+            tags: None,
+            resource_pool: None,
+            resource_id: &format!("remote/{remote}/node/{node}"),
+        };
+
+        self.check_if_included(remote, &resource_data)
+            && !self.check_if_excluded(remote, &resource_data)
+    }
+
+    /// Returns the name of the view filter.
+    pub fn name(&self) -> &str {
+        &self.config.id
+    }
+
+    fn check_if_included(&self, remote: &str, resource: &ResourceData) -> bool {
+        let rules = Rules {
+            ruleset_type: RulesetType::Include,
+            tags: &self.config.include_tag,
+            resource_ids: &self.config.include_resource_id,
+            resource_type: &self.config.include_resource_type,
+            resource_pools: &self.config.include_resource_pool,
+            remotes: &self.config.include_remote,
+        };
+
+        check_rules(rules, remote, resource)
+    }
+
+    fn check_if_excluded(&self, remote: &str, resource: &ResourceData) -> bool {
+        let rules = Rules {
+            ruleset_type: RulesetType::Exclude,
+            tags: &self.config.exclude_tag,
+            resource_ids: &self.config.exclude_resource_id,
+            resource_type: &self.config.exclude_resource_type,
+            resource_pools: &self.config.exclude_resource_pool,
+            remotes: &self.config.exclude_remote,
+        };
+
+        check_rules(rules, remote, resource)
+    }
+}
+
+enum RulesetType {
+    Include,
+    Exclude,
+}
+
+struct Rules<'a> {
+    ruleset_type: RulesetType,
+    tags: &'a [String],
+    resource_ids: &'a [String],
+    resource_pools: &'a [String],
+    resource_type: &'a [ResourceType],
+    remotes: &'a [String],
+}
+
+struct ResourceData<'a> {
+    resource_type: ResourceType,
+    tags: Option<&'a [String]>,
+    resource_pool: Option<&'a String>,
+    resource_id: &'a str,
+}
+
+impl<'a> From<&'a Resource> for ResourceData<'a> {
+    fn from(value: &'a Resource) -> Self {
+        match value {
+            Resource::PveStorage(_) => ResourceData {
+                resource_type: value.resource_type(),
+                tags: None,
+                resource_pool: None,
+                resource_id: value.global_id(),
+            },
+            Resource::PveQemu(resource) => ResourceData {
+                resource_type: value.resource_type(),
+                tags: Some(&resource.tags),
+                resource_pool: Some(&resource.pool),
+                resource_id: value.global_id(),
+            },
+            Resource::PveLxc(resource) => ResourceData {
+                resource_type: value.resource_type(),
+                tags: Some(&resource.tags),
+                resource_pool: Some(&resource.pool),
+                resource_id: value.global_id(),
+            },
+            Resource::PveNode(_) => ResourceData {
+                resource_type: value.resource_type(),
+                tags: None,
+                resource_pool: None,
+                resource_id: value.global_id(),
+            },
+            Resource::PveSdn(_) => ResourceData {
+                resource_type: value.resource_type(),
+                tags: None,
+                resource_pool: None,
+                resource_id: value.global_id(),
+            },
+            Resource::PbsNode(_) => ResourceData {
+                resource_type: value.resource_type(),
+                tags: None,
+                resource_pool: None,
+                resource_id: value.global_id(),
+            },
+            Resource::PbsDatastore(_) => ResourceData {
+                resource_type: value.resource_type(),
+                tags: None,
+                resource_pool: None,
+                resource_id: value.global_id(),
+            },
+        }
+    }
+}
+
+fn check_rules(rules: Rules, remote: &str, resource: &ResourceData) -> bool {
+    let has_any_rules = !rules.tags.is_empty()
+        || !rules.remotes.is_empty()
+        || !rules.resource_pools.is_empty()
+        || !rules.resource_type.is_empty()
+        || !rules.resource_ids.is_empty();
+
+    if !has_any_rules {
+        return matches!(rules.ruleset_type, RulesetType::Include);
+    }
+
+    if let Some(tags) = resource.tags {
+        if rules.tags.iter().any(|tag| tags.contains(tag)) {
+            return true;
+        }
+    }
+
+    if let Some(pool) = resource.resource_pool {
+        if rules.resource_pools.iter().any(|p| p == pool) {
+            return true;
+        }
+    }
+
+    if rules.remotes.iter().any(|r| r == remote) {
+        return true;
+    }
+
+    if rules.resource_ids.iter().any(|r| r == resource.resource_id) {
+        return true;
+    }
+
+    if rules
+        .resource_type
+        .iter()
+        .any(|ty| *ty == resource.resource_type)
+    {
+        return true;
+    }
+
+    false
+}
-- 
2.47.3



_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel