From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C14DC1FF137 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:50:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6F9551A4B8; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:50:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Fiona Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [PATCH storage v2 1/7] fix #7280: lvm plugin: rename: activate qcow2 volume to read snapshot info Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:49:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20260331115011.102276-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260331115011.102276-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20260331115011.102276-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774957758426 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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 Message-ID-Hash: LBV4RDFRQ63VXOJHMRJ4GCYKXXMH46HQ X-Message-ID-Hash: LBV4RDFRQ63VXOJHMRJ4GCYKXXMH46HQ X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Other callers of volume_snapshot_info() already do this. For other storages and formats, activation is not necessary to rename it, so the activation is only added here, rather than in the qemu-server, and, for consistency, container API endpoints. There is no need for deactivation after the rename operation. In fact, in case of reassign to a running target VM with SCSI or VirtIO block, the renamed disk is even hotplugged, so deactivation would be wrong. Note that the order of $scfg and $storeid really is switched when comparing volume_snapshot_info() and activate_volume(). Technically, the check for snapshots would not be needed, as reassigning a volume referenced in a snapshot is already prohibited by the guest API endpoints. But additional checks on the storage layer don't hurt and there might be other users of rename_volume() in the future. Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner --- No changes in v2. src/PVE/Storage/LVMPlugin.pm | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/LVMPlugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/LVMPlugin.pm index 32a8339..f9349de 100644 --- a/src/PVE/Storage/LVMPlugin.pm +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/LVMPlugin.pm @@ -1439,6 +1439,7 @@ sub rename_volume { ) = $class->parse_volname($source_volname); if ($format eq 'qcow2') { + $class->activate_volume($storeid, $scfg, $source_volname); my $snapshots = $class->volume_snapshot_info($scfg, $storeid, $source_volname); die "we can't rename volume if external snapshot exists" if $snapshots->{current}->{parent}; } -- 2.47.3