From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
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 AFA1677404
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:50:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AD2EB83B3
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:50:45 +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 228EB83A8
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:50:45 +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 E5BE442351
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:50:44 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:50:44 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <20210720115044.mwb6gyefgi2sdkph@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
References: <20210714095151.138084-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
<20210720114059.p5k32l5jap3nudz3@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210720114059.p5k32l5jap3nudz3@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.670 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [setup.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container v3] fix #3516: fix unmanaged
containers
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:50:45 -0000
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...