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 C06FA9B494 for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 16:41:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 994D021649 for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 16:40:31 +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 ; Wed, 24 May 2023 16:40:30 +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 3FDF946E26 for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 16:40:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <32149d4f-c698-b4be-529f-1f6f764cc870@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 16:40:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230512124043.888785-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20230512124043.888785-4-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.051 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.089 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server v2 3/6] migration: fail when aliased volume is detected 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: Wed, 24 May 2023 14:41:01 -0000 On 5/22/23 16:17, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 12.05.23 um 14:40 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >> Aliased volumes (referencing the same disk image multiple times) can >> lead to unexpected behavior in a migration. > > Not only migration, but snapshots, storage locking, etc. Should we > actually care here? I still think it is rather something that people > should be made aware for the storage layer. Maybe a big enough warning > in the documentation is enough? > > Since it's not only migration, should we add a warning during VM startup > instead/additionally? > I guess a warning in the docs would be a low-hanging fruit -> added to my TODO. Snapshots should just fail the second time as we already have one with the same name, right? AFAIU storage migration is a case where an aliased volume can lead to very unexpected behavior, like storages running full. So a check and die is probably a good idea. An additional warning during startup could probably be a good idea. In that case, the checks should probably be factored out into their own method so we can call it from the start as well. Though that would probably mean, another round of iterating through the config instead of inlining it.