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 20C0A938B3 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:52:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02E294929 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:52:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from lana.proxmox.com (unknown [94.136.29.99]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:51:58 +0100 (CET) Received: by lana.proxmox.com (Postfix, from userid 10043) id 626B72C2876; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:51:58 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Hanreich To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:51:56 +0100 Message-Id: <20230105145156.582258-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.379 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 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods NO_DNS_FOR_FROM 0.001 Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records RDNS_NONE 0.793 Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an 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. [qemuserver.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server v2] fix #4358: destroy_vm: Ignore 'suspended' lock when destroying VM 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, 05 Jan 2023 14:52:32 -0000 Since we can now differentiate between 'suspended' and 'suspending', it is possible to ignore the 'suspended' lock when destroying a VM. It shouldn't matter whether the VM is locked because of hibernation when you want to remove it. Therefore we can safely ignore the lock. --- Changes v1 -> v2: * Improved commit message After thinking about it for awhile, I'm not sure whether showing a hint in the UI, when removing a hibernated VM, is that useful. Not sure why one would have a reason to reconsider removal suddenly in that case. Maybe someone else has some input/ideas on this? PVE/QemuServer.pm | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm index 39fc6b0..5dae168 100644 --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm @@ -2341,7 +2341,9 @@ sub destroy_vm { my $conf = PVE::QemuConfig->load_config($vmid); - PVE::QemuConfig->check_lock($conf) if !$skiplock; + if (!$skiplock && !PVE::QemuConfig->has_lock($conf, 'suspended')) { + PVE::QemuConfig->check_lock($conf); + } if ($conf->{template}) { # check if any base image is still used by a linked clone -- 2.30.2