From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBB081FF16B
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:49:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8022C322CB;
Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:49:16 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <34756381-1f1b-4208-8db6-ed0dfe4c5652@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:48:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Mira Limbeck <m.limbeck@proxmox.com>
References: <mailman.51.1742117805.416.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
<833ae8dd-6eeb-4983-9358-8a2a59e96807@proxmox.com>
<82400f36-7792-4cc5-9dca-08b8e061b8b9@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <82400f36-7792-4cc5-9dca-08b8e061b8b9@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.010 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
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. [proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage v4] fix #957 iscsi: improve
iscsi_test_portal logic
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 20/03/2025 11:15, Mira Limbeck wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>> + # check session state instead if available
>>> + my $sessions = iscsi_session($cache, $target);
>>> + for my $session ($sessions->@*) {
>>> + next if $session->{portal} ne $portal;
>>> + return iscsi_test_session($session->{session_id});
>>
>> So if we have a session but it is not LOGGED_IN, we return 0.
>> I know this is what I suggested in my v3 comment, but now I'm not so
>> sure anymore. Couldn't it be the case that the session is broken for
>> some reason, but discovery would still works? In such a case, we would
>> now consider the portal offline. We could instead fall back to a TCP ping:
>>
>> my $state = iscsi_test_session($session->{session_id});
>> return $state if $state;
>>
>> Any opinions (from others)?
> After talking off-list about this, we do want to fall back to the
> tcp_ping if the session is not logged in. For discovery no session is
> needed. So even without a login, it might still be reachable via ping
> and a discovery possible.
Yeah, let's fall back to a tcp_ping if there is a session that is not
LOGGED_IN. Sorry for the confusion with my earlier suggestion on v3.
One minor thing I forgot -- the commit message might benefit from a few
more details:
- mention that when we test connectivity of a portal, we now first check
whether a logged-in session to that portal is already present and fall
back to the TCP ping only if there is no such session
- acknowledge that this is not going to remove TCP pings (and thus the
log messages on the target side) completely -- TCP pings are still done
e.g. if there is no active session yet.
And finally, the first line is missing a colon after "fix #957", but
this is a really minor thing now -- we can also fix when applying, just
mentioning it here for completeness.
@Victor, if you send a v5 I'll do some final testing on that version
and, if everything looks good, add my Tested-by/Reviewed-by trailers there.
[1]
https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Developer_Documentation#Commits_and_Commit_Messages
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel