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 AFA1677404 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:50:44 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Oguz Bektas 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 > > Reviewed-by: Stoiko Ivanov > > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > > --- > > 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...