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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 770B975886 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:43:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7427C14EC4 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:43:42 +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 id E7C6314EB9 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:43:41 +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 B9FF44678A for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:43:40 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <20210624084340.qnmlur4mb6bxacwi@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> References: <20210624072920.43336-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <1624521156.jnauh4rg8d.astroid@nora.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1624521156.jnauh4rg8d.astroid@nora.none> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.499 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] btrfs: check for btrfs in on_add_hook and activate 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: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:43:42 -0000 On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 09:56:58AM +0200, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > On June 24, 2021 9:29 am, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller > > --- > > PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > > index 133edc6..0e111a0 100644 > > --- a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > > +++ b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ use constant { > > FS_NOCOW_FL => 0x00800000, > > FS_IOC_GETFLAGS => 0x40086602, > > FS_IOC_SETFLAGS => 0x80086601, > > + BTRFS_MAGIC => 0x9123683e, > > }; > > > > # Configuration (similar to DirPlugin) > > @@ -89,8 +90,29 @@ sub check_config { > > return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::check_config($self, $sectionId, $config, $create, $skipSchemaCheck); > > } > > > > +my sub getfsmagic($) { > > + my ($path) = @_; > > + # The field type sizes in `struct statfs` are defined in a rather annoying way, and we only > > + # need the first field, which is a `long` for our supported platforms. > > + # Should be moved to pve-rs, so this can be the problem of the `libc` crate ;-) > > + # Just round up and extract what we need: > > + my $buf = pack('x160'); > > + if (0 != syscall(&PVE::Syscall::SYS_statfs, $path, $buf)) { > > + die "statfs on '$path' failed - $!\n"; > > + } > > + > > + return unpack('L!', $buf); > > +} > > + > > +my sub assert_btrfs($) { > > + my ($path) = @_; > > + die "'$path' is not a btrfs file system\n" > > + if getfsmagic($path) != BTRFS_MAGIC; > > +} > > + > > sub activate_storage { > > my ($class, $storeid, $scfg, $cache) = @_; > > + assert_btrfs($scfg->{path}); > > return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::activate_storage($class, $storeid, $scfg, $cache); > > shouldn't this be the other way round? first check for things like > is_mountpoint, then whether btrfs is there.. makes for less confusing > error message at least.. ack, sending v2 > > > } > > > > @@ -179,6 +201,14 @@ sub btrfs_cmd { > > return $msg; > > } > > > > +sub on_add_hook { > > + my ($class, $storeid, $scfg, %param) = @_; > > + > > + assert_btrfs($scfg->{path}); > > not needed - adding a new storage calls activate_storage if the storage > is enabled.. removing in v2