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 587AB9B71D for ; Thu, 25 May 2023 10:15:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3D95027D42 for ; Thu, 25 May 2023 10:14:45 +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 ; Thu, 25 May 2023 10:14:44 +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 2A4EB47071 for ; Thu, 25 May 2023 10:14:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5bbbfce0-2eea-bf1f-4d0d-0369efd30d72@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:14:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Aaron Lauterer , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230512124043.888785-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20230512124043.888785-4-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <32149d4f-c698-b4be-529f-1f6f764cc870@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <32149d4f-c698-b4be-529f-1f6f764cc870@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 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 -0.107 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: Thu, 25 May 2023 08:15:15 -0000 Am 24.05.23 um 16:40 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: > 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. Great! > Snapshots should just fail the second time as we already have one with > the same name, right? I think so. But it's only when the same aliased disk is attached twice. > 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. That is a good argument for the check during migration :) > 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. See my other reply to the original mail for 3/6 for a suggestion.