From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-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 4910F1FF16B
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:14:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 43A28C429;
Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:14:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <13dd23d2-5a04-4ce2-b047-a93247ae0300@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:14:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250211160825.254167-1-d.kral@proxmox.com>
<20250211160825.254167-3-d.kral@proxmox.com>
<da714d0b-c93b-4734-b91a-b6783bf1af49@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <da714d0b-c93b-4734-b91a-b6783bf1af49@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.008 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-storage v2 2/5] introduce helpers for
content type assertions of storages and volumes
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 2/19/25 15:54, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 11.02.25 um 17:07 schrieb Daniel Kral:
>> Add subroutines for asserting the content types of storages and volumes
>> to reduce code duplication, e.g. when implementing preconditions in an
>> API handler before calling vdisk_alloc.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> changes since v1:
>> - moved from qemu-server to pve-storage
>> - add missing $node parameter to helpers
>> - adapt and fix wrong docs (copy paste error)
>> - remove `alloc_volume_disk` and `check_{volume,storage}_alloc`
>>
>> src/PVE/Storage.pm | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage.pm b/src/PVE/Storage.pm
>> index 3b4f041..ca69cd6 100755
>> --- a/src/PVE/Storage.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage.pm
>> @@ -529,6 +529,46 @@ sub parse_volume_id {
>> return PVE::Storage::Plugin::parse_volume_id($volid, $noerr);
>> }
>>
>> +=head3 assert_content_type_supported($cfg, $storeid, $content_type [, $node])
>> +
>> +Asserts whether the storage with the identifier C<$storeid>, which is defined in C<$cfg>, supports
>> +the content type C<$content_type>.
>> +
>> +If C<$node> is set, the assertion is made for the specified C<$node>, else for the current node.
>> +
>> +If the check fails, the subroutine will C<die> with an error message for either the storage being
>> +unavailable or the storage not supporting the specified content type.
>> +
>
> I'd rather group the functions with their respective doc. I.e.
> doc+function,doc+function instead of doc+doc,function+function.
Will do so in a v3!
>
>> +=head3 assert_volume_type_supported($cfg, $volid [, $node])
>> +
>> +Asserts whether the volume with the identifier C<$volid>, which is on a storage defined in C<$cfg>,
>> +supports the volume's content type determined by L<parse_volname>.
>> +
>> +If C<$node> is set, the assertion is made for the specified C<$node>, else for the current node.
>> +
>> +If the check fails, the subroutine will C<die> with an error message for either the storage being
>> +unavailable or the storage not supporting the volume's content type.
>> +
>> +=cut
>> +
>> +sub assert_content_type_supported : prototype($$$;$) {
>> + my ($cfg, $storeid, $content_type, $node) = @_;
>> +
>> + my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid, $node);
>
> The storage_config() function does not have a $node parameter, but a
> $noerr parameter. I guess you want to use storage_check_enabled() since
> the documentation talks about "storage being unavailable"?
Uff sorry, that's right that was an oversight and doesn't make sense...
Yes you're correct, I had the `storage_check_enabled` here before, but
replaced it in the end but forgot to remove the parameter.
There are AFAIK 5 instances where I used this helper where there wasn't
a `storage_check_enabled` before and I was worried about breaking any
existing checks at these locations and another helper (with just an
added `storage_check_enabled`) felt like bloat.
I checked the locations again where there wasn't a
`storage_check_enabled` before:
- qemu-server patch #9 (in `config_to_command`),
- qemu-server patch #11 (in `check_storage_access`),
- qemu-server patch #13 (in `parse_backup_hints`),
- container patch #10 (in `update_pct_config`), and
- container patch #11 (in `__mountpoint_mount`).
If we could use the `storage_check_enabled` in all of those, I'd move
the `storage_check_enabled` in the helper method and add to each patch
message where there was a `storage_check_enabled` before with "No
functional changes intended" and those where it wasn't with a reason why
it makes sense to add one now. If I didn't miss anything:
- qemu-server #9 - `config_to_command` obviously fails at another
location if the storage is not currently enabled anyway
- qemu-server #11 - `check_storage_access` is called in the create_vm
and update_vm API handler... where it checks whether any new disk can be
put on the storage (also fails when the storage is not enabled)
- qemu-server #13 - `parse_backup_hints` is used in
`restore_vma_archive` and `restore_proxmox_backup_archive` to parse and
check whether the devices can be allocated (with
`$restore_allocate_devices` afterwards)
- container #10 - `update_pct_config` asserts whether new or changed
mountpoints can be allocated... and fails if the storage is not enabled
- container #11 - `__mountpoint_mount` is used in more places, but all
look to need the volume on the storage immediately afterwards anyway
(`snapshot`, `archive`, resize_vm API handler, `copy_volume`)... and I
guess it would fail in any of those with
`PVE::Storage::activate_volumes` calling `activate_storage` before the
helper anyway
So if I didn't miss anything, I'd do this in a v3.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel