Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH guest-common v2 1/1] helpers: exec hookscript: add optional parameters

["Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>]

On February 13, 2026 11:52 am, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/13/26 11:47 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>> On January 23, 2026 2:25 pm, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>> sometimes we may want to call the hookscript with additional parameters
>>> in some phases, e.g. we want to call it for each pci device that was
>>> prepared before starting with the correct uuid or pci id.
>>>
>>> Add these new parameters to the environment instead of the positional
>>> parameters of the hookscript, since that is more future proof and we get
>>> a key/value pair instead of just the position.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> changes from v1:
>>> * use a hash instead of a list for the parameters, and give them to the
>>>    hookscript via the environment instead of positional parameters, like
>>>    we do for the vzdump hookscript
>>>
>>>   src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm | 10 +++++++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm b/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm
>>> index f8d112b..b4122e6 100644
>>> --- a/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm
>>> +++ b/src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm
>>> @@ -115,14 +115,22 @@ sub check_hookscript {
>>>   }
>>>   
>>>   sub exec_hookscript {
>>> -    my ($conf, $vmid, $phase, $stop_on_error) = @_;
>>> +    my ($conf, $vmid, $phase, $stop_on_error, $params) = @_;
>>>   
>>>       return if !$conf->{hookscript};
>>>   
>>> +    $params //= {};
>>> +
>>>       eval {
>>>           my $hookscript = check_hookscript($conf->{hookscript});
>>>           die $@ if $@;
>>>   
>>> +        local %ENV;
>>> +
>>> +        for my $key (keys $params->%*) {
>>> +            $ENV{ uc($key) } = $params->{$key};
>> 
>> this should really have some sort of static prefix, both to avoid
>> clashes, and to allow the hookscript to find all such parameters (e.g.
>> for logging purposes) by filtering all set env variables.
>> 
>> PVE_HOOKSCRIPT_PARAM_...
>> 
>> or something similar would do the trick?
> 
> 
> yep make sense, but maybe something a bit shorter?
> 
> PVE_PARAM_
> 
> PVE_HS_PARAM_
> 
> PVE_HS_
> 
> ?

yeah, anything short but specific enough to avoid accidents should be
fine. maybe `PVE_HOOK_` ?