From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
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 EE49695435
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:33:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BE6F470CF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:32:47 +0200 (CEST)
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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:32:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C8AE2450DC
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:32:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:32:42 +0200
From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240319150834.266548-1-h.duerr@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240319150834.266548-1-h.duerr@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Message-Id: <1712914044.dmqqhkfhvy.astroid@yuna.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.057 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
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. [qemu.pm, proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 1/1] snapshot: prohibit snapshot
with ram if vm has a passthrough pci device
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:33:18 -0000
On March 19, 2024 4:08 pm, Hannes Duerr wrote:
> When a snapshot is created with RAM, qemu attempts to save not only the
> RAM content, but also the internal state of the PCI devices.
>=20
> However, as not all drivers support this, this can lead to the device
> drivers in the VM not being able to handle the saved state during the
> restore/rollback and in conclusion the VM might crash. For this reason,
> we now generally prohibit snapshots with RAM for VMs with passthrough
> devices.
>=20
> In the future, this prohibition can of course be relaxed for individual
> drivers that we know support it, such as the vfio driver
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Duerr <h.duerr@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>=20
> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm
> index 40b6c30..0acd1c7 100644
> --- a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm
> +++ b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm
> @@ -5101,6 +5101,16 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
> die "unable to use snapshot name 'pending' (reserved name)\n"
> if lc($snapname) eq 'pending';
> =20
> + if ($param->{vmstate}) {
> + my $conf =3D PVE::QemuConfig->load_config($vmid);
> +
> + for my $key (keys %$conf) {
> + next if $key !~ /^hostpci\d+/;
> + die "cannot snapshot VM with RAM due to passed-through PCI device(s), =
which lack"
> + ." the possibility to save/restore their internal state\n";
> + }
> + }
isn't the same also true of other local resources (e.g., passed-through
USB?)?
maybe we could find a way to unify the checks we do for live migration
(PVE::QemuServer::check_local_resources), since that is almost the same
code inside Qemu as a stateful snapshot+rollback?
(not opposed to applying this before that happens though, just a
question in general..)
> +
> my $realcmd =3D sub {
> PVE::Cluster::log_msg('info', $authuser, "snapshot VM $vmid: $snapn=
ame");
> PVE::QemuConfig->snapshot_create($vmid, $snapname, $param->{vmstate=
},
> --=20
> 2.39.2
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>=20
>=20
>=20