From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E5DD9317F for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:43:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4E164D33E for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:43:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:43:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8D6AB450D8 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:43:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <0b962a8c-9b6c-d2f9-f515-322919381baa@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:43:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/109.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Hanreich References: <20230103144501.1103523-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20230103144501.1103523-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.539 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -3.142 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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. [qemuserver.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] fix #4358: destroy_vm: Ignore 'suspended' lock when destroying VM X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:43:24 -0000 Am 03/01/2023 um 15:45 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: > Since there is not really a reason why hibernated VMs shouldn't be IMO the key that this is safe is that there's now (well since quite a while) two locks so that going into suspension and being actually suspended can be differentiated via the `suspending` (not safe) and `suspended` (safe) locks. Maybe that could be worked in the commit message (could do son on applying it) > able to be removed, we can safely ignore the 'suspended' lock in > destroy_vm. Is the saved VM state then actually cleaned up? Maybe a extra hint for such things in the web UI could be nice, but must not necessarily be tied to this patch (series). > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich > --- > PVE/QemuServer.pm | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > index 39fc6b0..5dae168 100644 > --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm > +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > @@ -2341,7 +2341,9 @@ sub destroy_vm { > > my $conf = PVE::QemuConfig->load_config($vmid); > > - PVE::QemuConfig->check_lock($conf) if !$skiplock; > + if (!$skiplock && !PVE::QemuConfig->has_lock($conf, 'suspended')) { > + PVE::QemuConfig->check_lock($conf); > + } > > if ($conf->{template}) { > # check if any base image is still used by a linked clone