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 28ECE985DB for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C5C53942 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:27 +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 A913242FBD for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <63532d84-0ded-42cf-a286-c515e6f33ebc@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:40:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , Fiona Ebner References: <20231114142714.27578-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <0c9cd0e3-fecc-453c-9238-8dc249b0a0d0@proxmox.com> <4e09708f-4259-4784-99c8-7e8115a0eb56@proxmox.com> From: Philipp Hufnagl In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.059 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 storage] fix #5008: prevent adding pbs storage with invalid namespace 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: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 10:40:29 -0000 On 11/15/23 11:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 15/11/2023 um 11:05 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl: >> >> >> On 11/15/23 10:52, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Am 15/11/2023 um 10:37 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl: >>>> On 11/15/23 09:31, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>>>> Am 14.11.23 um 15:27 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl: >>>>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm >>>>>> index 4320974..aceb2c4 100644 >>>>>> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm >>>>>> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm >>>>>> @@ -817,6 +817,17 @@ sub scan_datastores { >>>>>> return $response; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +sub scan_namespaces { >>>>>> + my ($scfg, $datastore, $password) = @_; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + my $conn = pbs_api_connect($scfg, $password); >>>>> >>>>> Not super important, but would be nice to have a way to re-use the same >>>>> connection in scan_datastores() and here, since activate_storage() will >>>>> call both of them. >>>> >>>> scan_datastores() seem to be called somewhere else as well. I see if I >>>> can find a way to reuse the connection but not break the code there. >>> >>> >>> In the long run it maybe could be better to have an explicit check_availability >>> hook, but IMO it's a bit late in the release cycle for that as this needs a bit >>> extra care, especially w.r.t. external plugins and our ABI compat. >>> >>> Anyhow, as workaround we might be able to do this check in the on_add_hook and >>> on_update_hook methods for now. >> >> I am planning on introducing a function called "connect_if_none" that >> checks if it gets passed a connection and if so, return it. If it gets >> passed undef, it will establish a connection and return that one. >> >> That way a user can simply write something like >> >> my $conn = connect_if_none($scfg, $password, $conn); >> >> and not worry about it. > > > not sure how above fits to my comment at all... > Connection re-use is not the real issue here, doing it senslessy on every > activate is.. > > And connect_if_none is a rather generic/undescriptive name and still would > not solve re-use if done in different method calls, so a rather for only > a very limited use case where one can just pass $conn around directly. I can rename it. I am not certain if I understand correctly. Aren't those hooks trigered after adding a storage? The issue I am resolving here is before the storage is actually added.