Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container v3] fix #3516: fix unmanaged containers

[Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:40:59PM +0200, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:51:51AM +0200, Oguz Bektas wrote:
> > unmanaged containers should run the unified cgroupv2 code from our base
> > plugin so that they can start correctly instead of erroring out
> > 
> > Tested-by: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > v2-> v3:
> > * added comment from stoiko's reply
> > 
> > 
> >  src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm
> > index 9abdc85..4408dcc 100644
> > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm
> > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm
> > @@ -424,6 +424,10 @@ sub get_ct_os_release {
> >  sub unified_cgroupv2_support {
> >      my ($self) = @_;
> >  
> > +    # code in base plugin is a generic check and should work
> > +    # for most distributions
> > +    $self->{plugin} //= 'PVE::LXC::Setup::Base'; # unmanaged
> 
> This has the side effect that all later checks for unmanaged containers
> via `$self->{plugin}` are broken.
> Please either move this *into* the `protected_call` below (and add a
> comment that the assignment is temporary due to how `protected_call`
> works), or cleanup this change afterwards (but that would need to be
> `die`-safe (iow. would need an eval around the `protected_call`)

Thinking about this some more, I think the initial strategy in v1 was
almost right.

Simply return `1` for unmanaged containers.

This is only used to produce warnings anyway, and we can simply assume
that unmanaged containers shouldn't break because we run a more modern
system, and if they do, it's not our responsibility anyway...