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 EBCD6942F5
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:38:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D3D4BE63F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:38:35 +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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:38:35 +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 218BC43AB9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:38:35 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:38:34 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <2k2aeucv6tx6ruxczfockfplgvlzi7zwm5ag4ktzuob24adaey@vidu2kcw6nvx>
References: <20240315102502.84163-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20240315102502.84163-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<pbokhbft2wbc2jnthp75gzz5u3vgswr7irlarwxadvc5cr777q@avaj6rwkxugb>
<553f7d33-d739-49d0-a65e-b572d3985da2@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <553f7d33-d739-49d0-a65e-b572d3985da2@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.086 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu v2 07/21] PVE backup: add fleecing
option
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:38:36 -0000
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:30:59AM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 08.04.24 um 14:45 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:24:48AM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> >> @@ -581,6 +682,14 @@ static void create_backup_jobs_bh(void *opaque) {
> >> aio_co_enter(data->ctx, data->co);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * EFI disk and TPM state are small and it's just not worth setting up fleecing for them.
> >> + */
> >> +static bool device_uses_fleecing(const char *device_id)
> >
> > Do we really want this?
> >
> > IMO we already have enough code trying to distinguish "real" disks from
> > efidisks and tpmstate files.
> >
> > AFAICT we do check whether the hmp command to *create* the fleecing
> > drives actually works, so... (see below)
> >
> >> +{
> >> + return strncmp(device_id, "drive-efidisk", 13) && strncmp(device_id, "drive-tpmstate", 14);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * Returns a list of device infos, which needs to be freed by the caller. In
> >> * case of an error, errp will be set, but the returned value might still be a
> >> @@ -588,6 +697,7 @@ static void create_backup_jobs_bh(void *opaque) {
> >> */
> >> static GList coroutine_fn *get_device_info(
> >> const char *devlist,
> >> + bool fleecing,
> >> Error **errp)
> >> {
> >> gchar **devs = NULL;
> >> @@ -611,6 +721,31 @@ static GList coroutine_fn *get_device_info(
> >> }
> >> PVEBackupDevInfo *di = g_new0(PVEBackupDevInfo, 1);
> >> di->bs = bs;
> >> +
> >> + if (fleecing && device_uses_fleecing(*d)) {
> >> + g_autofree gchar *fleecing_devid = g_strconcat(*d, "-fleecing", NULL);
> >> + BlockBackend *fleecing_blk = blk_by_name(fleecing_devid);
> >> + if (!fleecing_blk) {
> >
> > ...so instead of this, we could just treat the absence of a fleecing
> > BlockBackend *not* as an error, but as deliberate?
> >
>
> Yes, we could. But the check gives protection against potential (future)
> bugs where we can't find the fleecing device for some other reason.
> Without the check, we'd just quietly continue and it would be hard to
> notice that something is wrong. So I'm slightly in favor of keeping it.
> If you still want me to remove it, I'll do it in v3.
Mh, makes sense. Let's keep it then.