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 2E81175760 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:43:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 19E7E130F1 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:43:16 +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 id 9A60E130E3 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:43:15 +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 66D714677F for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:43:15 +0200 (CEST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210621143140.2022-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <8972feac-f6a3-02df-09b0-caf9cf3dfadd@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <4023f3f8-81c9-d51d-fbff-dfe83b8f2b1c@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:43:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8972feac-f6a3-02df-09b0-caf9cf3dfadd@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.656 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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] applied-series: [PATCH-SERIES v2 manager] stricter storage rules for migration 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: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 07:43:46 -0000 Am 21.06.21 um 17:18 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 21.06.21 16:31, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> Changes from v1: >> * dropped already applied patches >> * rebased >> * adapted/improved messages >> >> Fabian Ebner (2): >> pve6to7: add check for guest images on misconfigured storages >> pve6to7: check for misconfigured content type 'none' >> >> PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) >> > > > applied, thanks! I adapted the output a bit to list them newline-separated, was a bit > clearer here, in my case. > > And maybe we want to further filter those by the ones actually found in VM configs? > > As else it may be a false-positive, e.g., one may have added the same storage twice, > which can be OK as long as both entries do not share any content-type, as then there > should be no locking issue or other issues stemming from our base assumption that one > storage is there only once (a use case could be priv. separation). > > It at least feels a bit odd to me to get warnings for disks which's VMID is neither a > guest nor a configured anywhere in the cluster. > Makes sense, I'll send a follow-up.