From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 37350A07F8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:35:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 147CE11F08 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:35:05 +0100 (CET) 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>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:35:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CEA4743AD9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:35:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690eb2d-731c-4868-8ca4-f77715b00559@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:34:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?Hannes_D=C3=BCrr?= <h.duerr@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20231108085128.38933-1-h.duerr@proxmox.com> <c5b7b8c0-b519-4df2-8a40-8856ea7f95ce@proxmox.com> <c9061bc3-963e-4502-846b-4ad54673cf60@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <c9061bc3-963e-4502-846b-4ad54673cf60@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.080 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 qemu-server] fix #4957: add vendor and product information passthrough for SCSI-Disks 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: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 08:35:35 -0000 Am 08.11.23 um 15:28 schrieb Hannes Dürr: >> >> Can we do the check before creating the drive instead? We know if it's a >> CD or pass-through and the path or if it's iscsi ahead of time and that >> should be enough for the check, or what am I missing? > I don't think its possible to check in advance as the config can still > contain a not properly formed path like: > 'local-lvm:5', which will be formed to the real path when creating the > disk or am I mistaken You can just teach the get_scsi_devicetype() helper to recognize the special syntax and compare by storage type in that case (can/should be it's own patch ;)). At a glance, 'iscsidirect' and 'zfs' are the ones using an "iscsi://" path, but please double check. Of course there could be a third-party plugin using "iscsi://" too, but this is just an early check and only applies to VMs with machine version < 4.1 anyways. These cases should be very rare and it'll just fail later so no big deal. The benefit of having the check earlier for all other cases is enough to justify that IMHO.