From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 6079566242
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:01:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 464DD1B3C5
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:00:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(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 8FD601B3BA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:00:33 +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 4B14A46042
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:00:33 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
References: <20201105160631.26834-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
<20201105160631.26834-3-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <7a96af02-544b-eb82-b1a1-185b323c24d8@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:00:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/83.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201105160631.26834-3-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.114 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
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)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [rbdplugin.pm, plugin.pm, storage.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 1/1] add check for fsfreeze before
snapshot
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, 05 Nov 2020 18:01:04 -0000
On 05.11.20 17:06, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> In order to take a snapshot of a container volume, which can be mounted=
> read-only with RBD, the volume needs to be frozen (fsfreeze (8)) before=
taking
> the snapshot. Only RBD is affected by this (for LVMThin this is handled=
> by the devicemapper).
>=20
> This commit adds helpers to determine if the FIFREEZE ioctl needs to be=
called
> for the volume.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/Storage.pm | 12 ++++++++++++
> PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 4 ++++
> PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm | 5 +++++
> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
>=20
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm
> index cd7b5ff..27223b6 100755
> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm
> @@ -287,6 +287,18 @@ sub volume_snapshot_delete {
> }
> }
> =20
> +# check if a filesystem on top of a volume needs to flush it's journal=
for
> +# constency (see fsfreeze(8)) before a snapshot is taken - needed for
> +# container mountpoints
> +sub volume_snapshot_needs_fsfreeze {
> + my ($cfg, $volid) =3D @_;
> +
> + my ($storeid, $volname) =3D parse_volume_id($volid);
> + my $scfg =3D storage_config($cfg, $storeid);
> + my $plugin =3D PVE::Storage::Plugin->lookup($scfg->{type});
> + return $plugin->volume_snapshot_needs_fsfreeze();
> +}
> +
> # check if a volume or snapshot supports a given feature
> # $feature - one of:
> # clone - linked clone is possible
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> index 63f68da..a046640 100644
> --- a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> @@ -888,6 +888,10 @@ sub volume_snapshot_delete {
> return undef;
> }
> =20
> +sub volume_snapshot_needs_fsfreeze {
expanding the storage plugin ABI should normally be recorded via the vers=
ion/
age mechanism. New additions which do not break existing plugins should b=
ump
both, max age and version. Else, external plugins cannot know if they can=
rely
on that method.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> sub storage_can_replicate {
> my ($class, $scfg, $storeid, $format) =3D @_;
> =20
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm
> index 38f2b46..94df89d 100644
> --- a/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage/RBDPlugin.pm
> @@ -694,6 +694,11 @@ sub volume_snapshot_delete {
> return undef;
> }
> =20
> +sub volume_snapshot_needs_fsfreeze {
> +
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> sub volume_has_feature {
> my ($class, $scfg, $feature, $storeid, $volname, $snapname, $runni=
ng) =3D @_;
> =20
>=20