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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEB05D82D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:11:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 97A3316CC2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:11:43 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:11:42 +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 60A3342D28
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:11:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <36a2cab5-da40-6650-38cf-f5340aeff1c4@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:11:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.14.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20230621134700.29199-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230621134700.29199-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 2.073 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           -4.279 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 storage] plugin: handle invalid storage
 types
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: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:11:43 -0000

Am 21.06.23 um 15:47 schrieb Christian Ebner:
> Warn and skip if a storage with unknown storage type is encountered.
> This might happen by manually editing the storage config.
> 

or having used a third-party plugin in the past.

> Signed-off-by: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
>   - v1 contained the wrong diff
> 
>  src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> index 9d3b1ae..732f27e 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> @@ -518,6 +518,10 @@ sub parse_config {
>      foreach my $storeid (keys %$ids) {
>  	my $d = $ids->{$storeid};
>  	my $type = $d->{type};
> +	if (!$type) {
> +	    warn "invalid storage type for '$storeid'\n";
> +	    next;
> +	}
>  

Isn't this already done by the parent parser in SectionConfig.pm? At
least I get a

> file /etc/pve/storage.cfg line 55 (skip section 'bar'): unsupported type 'foo'

and no other errors with an invalid entry using pvesm status.