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 7F8F91FF0E6 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:36:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0CDD921490; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:36:38 +0200 (CEST) From: =?UTF-8?q?Fabian=20Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Elias Huhsovitz Subject: applied: [PATCH storage] fix #7811: storage: lvm: reject allocation on format and volume name mismatch Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:35:18 +0200 Message-ID: <178488571614.355016.6933965562231473577.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260716103243.61836-1-e.huhsovitz@proxmox.com> References: <20260716103243.61836-1-e.huhsovitz@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784885733698 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.151 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_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low 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: SHP5ACT6NPWCSUVNNQIPL4PRETQTLNO4 X-Message-ID-Hash: SHP5ACT6NPWCSUVNNQIPL4PRETQTLNO4 X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@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: On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:32:43 +0200, Elias Huhsovitz wrote: > When users allocate a new volume via the API and request a specific > format (like 'qcow2'), but provide a volume name without the > corresponding extension (like 'vm-100-disk-0'), the generic API > validation misses the inconsistency. This occurs because standard LVM > raw volumes do not use file extensions. > > The LVMPlugin ignored this mismatch. It created a raw > logical volume and logged a misleading "formatting as qcow2" message. > This resulted in a confusing state where the storage lists the volume > as 'raw', but the underlying block device contains a 'qcow2' image. > > [...] Applied with `make tidy` folded in, thanks! If you think there are other paths that would benefit from this helper being called, feel free to send additional patches! [1/1] fix #7811: storage: lvm: reject allocation on format and volume name mismatch commit: 05032c5903313e2133754c62d6d35a56551b476b Best regards, -- Fabian Grünbichler