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 781186A6A2 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:58:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6EBD0273E0 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:58:56 +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 id 95D07273D7 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:58:55 +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 683B646DBD for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:58:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:58:44 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Fabian Ebner , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220309100919.31512-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <1647272668.dywyj5zjzo.astroid@nora.none> <81032125-67bc-d2ec-e2dd-cb7017ec1c11@proxmox.com> <1647425717.88oufe3boz.astroid@nora.none> <236bc4df-7458-5270-0256-779eac8264ff@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <236bc4df-7458-5270-0256-779eac8264ff@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1647430436.rqnuzh9an9.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.184 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] partially-applied: [PATCH-SERIES v12 qemu-server/manager] API for disk import and OVF 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: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 11:58:56 -0000 On March 16, 2022 12:25 pm, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 16.03.22 um 11:29 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >> On March 16, 2022 11:00 am, Fabian Ebner wrote: >>> Am 14.03.22 um 16:57 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >>>> applied qemu-server patches except 11 and 14-16, see comments on=20 >>>> indivudal patches. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks a lot for the review/feedback! >>> >>>> some unrelated but possibly fix-able as followup things I noticed: >>>> - cloning a running VM with an EFI disk fails, the EFI disk is not=20 >>>> mirrorable (so we need another check like for TPM state?) >>> >>> Isn't that just when the target storage allocates a different-sized >>> disk, i.e. https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D3227 >>=20 >> no, was my fault (the VM in question had an efi disk, but was not booted= =20 >> using UEFI). probably should add a check for that as well though,=20 >> unrelated to this series (move disk is also affected, and I guess=20 >> live-migration as well..) >=20 > Would it be enough to have a prominent warning when starting the VM, > because it's already a configuration issue there. yeah, a warning at startup and maybe marking the EFI disk on the GUI=20 somehow - we do have both relevant settings available there? I think warnings at startup are easily missed, but checking for such=20 invalid configs in all operations that might possibly get called also=20 seems like overkill (and the error if it happens is somewhat speaking=20 anyway - it says there is no drive node named 'drive-efidisk0' ;)) >>>> - cancelling a running clone doesn't cleanup properly (stops with tryi= ng=20 >>>> to aquire lock and leaves the target VM locked & existing) >>>> >>> >>> Will take a look. >>> >>=20 >> the exact log messages are not always the same, but the target remains=20 >> around locked with whatever state it managed to get to (and the task=20 >> stopped with 'unexpected status'). >=20 > For me, this seems specific to RBD? And only when stopping via killing > the task via API/GUI which kills after 5 seconds. When interrupting on > the CLI, it hangs for a while but eventually cleans up. ZFS here (and yeah, clicking the stop button on the GUI), haven't tried=20 other storages.. if there are some easy wins for improving this I'd go=20 for it, but like I said, not related to this series at all, just=20 something I noticed while testing.. flows where regular users can easily=20 create config-locked guests are kinda cumbersome though.