From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB53C1FF0AD for ; Sun, 04 Oct 2026 21:34:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C5E1D21691; Sun, 04 Oct 2026 21:34:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Fiona Ebner Subject: applied: [PATCH storage] fix #7295: lvm plugin: rollback: keep original volume when allocation fails and saferemove is used Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 21:33:30 +0200 Message-ID: <179114230653.2862530.13293353231709205634.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260209104009.44272-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20260209104009.44272-1-f.ebner@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: 1791142438361 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.627 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_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium 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: RZ3FFU75DU4AJMJNIMIBWRHCLJCBVZXZ X-Message-ID-Hash: RZ3FFU75DU4AJMJNIMIBWRHCLJCBVZXZ X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 11:40:00 +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: > When the 'saferemove' storage configuration option is used, the > 'current' top volume of the backing chain is renamed and removal is > delegated to a worker task. Thus, the space for that volume is still > allocated and cannot be re-used for the new top volume (to be backed > by the snapshot volume). With a full enough pool, allocating the new > top volume fails. In this case, executing the saferemove worker and > removing the 'current' volume is bad, because there won't be any top > volume anymore. Fixing that situation would mean manually allocating a > new top volume backed by the snapshot afterwards. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] fix #7295: lvm plugin: rollback: keep original volume when allocation fails and saferemove is used https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-storage.git;a=commitdiff;h=75f3c5518df9571e1d6c525075bd958a1d464140