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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 603DE74371 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 46441C9E6 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 51378C9D9 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:01 +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 1AE7E41C80 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1aa9184c-9e53-f62a-68f3-256c69a79eba@proxmox.com> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:30:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fabian Ebner References: <20210415101057.2836-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210415101057.2836-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.040 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 URIBL_BLACK 3 Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist [drive.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] drive: volume in-use check: fix fallback path comparison 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: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 15:30:33 -0000 On 15.04.21 12:10, Fabian Ebner wrote: > When checking whether a volume is still referenced by a snapshot, the volid > itself is first checked. When the volid is different, we fall back to comparing > the path. > > As the first value to be compared is a volume's path, the second value better be > a volume's path too, and not a snapshot's path. > > See also 77019edfe0c190c949cdc0b0e3b4ad2ca37313b3 for historical context. > > The error that led me here: > * had a VM with ZFS over iSCSI storage with an exsiting snapshot > * add new unused drive > * try to remove the unsued drive > * fails, because ZFS (not Pool!) Plugin does not support snapshot paths. > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner > --- > PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm b/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm > index 01ea8d7..9016a43 100644 > --- a/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm > +++ b/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm > @@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ sub is_volume_in_use { > next if !$storeid; > my $scfg = PVE::Storage::storage_config($storecfg, $storeid, 1); > next if !$scfg; > - return 1 if $path eq PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $drive->{file}, $snapname); > + return 1 if $path eq PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $drive->{file}); makes the whole $snapname param of that closure unused, which seems OK as $cref holds the actual info, FWICT after a quick look. So, if that patch is sound it should probably remove the $snapname from $scan_config closure too. > } > } > } >