From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03B5C1FF0AB for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 15:12:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 44F682139E; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 15:12:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <119ff822-2794-4dff-be99-4c0e6f813542@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 15:12:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH storage] plugins: better document how volname_for_format() validates the name To: Elias Huhsovitz , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261005110650.91260-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1791378768140 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.455 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: ZQ4VMP4JPWKJHKAOYDBYTFOV542WJXNV X-Message-ID-Hash: ZQ4VMP4JPWKJHKAOYDBYTFOV542WJXNV X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 07.10.26 um 2:51 PM schrieb Elias Huhsovitz: > I think the comments here are fine, but I would prefer this should be > documented in the POD for the respective subroutines. > > Both parse_name_dir & (espeically) parse_volname would also benefit > from a proper POD. Yes, but that is out-of-scope for this patch. Max has been working on documenting the storage plugin interface properly. This patch is for better documenting how the volname_for_format() implementations achieve validation, and even if parse_{name_dir,volname} had proper POD, the added comments inline are better suited for making it explicit/readable how validation is achieved here IMHO. > > See small comments inlinde. > > On Mon Oct 5, 2026 at 1:04 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> In particular, there is a requirement for get_parsed_format() to >> return a format only if it validated the name. Mention it explicitly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner >> --- >> src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 5 +++-- >> src/PVE/Storage/ZFSPoolPlugin.pm | 3 ++- >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm >> index 8318a68..e2025f8 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm >> @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ sub parse_volname { >> =head3 get_parsed_format >> >> Return the disk format encoded in the given volume name, or C if the name does not spell one >> -out. >> +out. If a format is returned, the name must have been validated. >> >> This is an extension point for plugins whose volume names encode the format differently. ZFS >> derives it from the name prefix via C, while LVM and RBD take it from a known file >> @@ -866,7 +866,7 @@ sub get_parsed_format { >> >> return undef if $name !~ m/\.[^.]+$/; # no extension, so no format is spelled out >> >> - return (parse_name_dir($name))[1]; >> + return (parse_name_dir($name))[1]; # dies for invalid volume file names > > We could add this information inside the POD of the function. > > Similarly to how javadoc has the @throws annonation. > >> } >> >> sub is_valid_format { >> @@ -904,6 +904,7 @@ sub volname_for_format { >> >> my $parsed_volname_fmt = $class->get_parsed_format($name); >> >> + # Note that get_parsed_format() validates the name if it has a format extension. >> return $name if defined($parsed_volname_fmt) && $parsed_volname_fmt eq $fmt; >> >> my $suggestion = $class->volname_with_format($name, $fmt); >> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/ZFSPoolPlugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/ZFSPoolPlugin.pm >> index 61c49d9..e7cd1de 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/ZFSPoolPlugin.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/ZFSPoolPlugin.pm >> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ sub parse_volname { >> sub get_parsed_format { >> my ($class, $name) = @_; >> >> - return ($class->parse_volname($name))[6]; >> + return ($class->parse_volname($name))[6]; # dies for invalid volume names > > Same here, I belive this belongs in the POD, as part of the "contract". > >> } >> >> # ZFS volume names always encode their format in the name prefix (vm- for raw >> @@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ sub volname_for_format { >> >> die "unsupported format '$fmt'\n" if !($class->is_valid_format($fmt)); >> >> + # Note that get_parsed_format() validates the name. >> my $name_fmt = $class->get_parsed_format($name); >> return $name if $name_fmt eq $fmt; >> >