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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D299852E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:23:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AB84E3314
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:22:47 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:22:47 +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 ED19F42F98
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:22:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <810f3423-7f55-4915-96c8-550241b191de@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:22:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20231114140204.27679-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20231114140204.27679-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <1700038325.l2cibe7y7o.astroid@yuna.none>
 <gkypmq6cjf4c5dddd3a5c66crwmv3m4d4ssaodfqupi6bzhfjj@vwrkzvhkqb32>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <gkypmq6cjf4c5dddd3a5c66crwmv3m4d4ssaodfqupi6bzhfjj@vwrkzvhkqb32>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.079 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] [RFC qemu-server 1/1] partially fix #4501:
 migration: start vm: move port reservation and usage closer together
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 10:23:17 -0000

Am 15.11.23 um 11:12 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
>
> What about adding an option to `next_migrate_port()` to actually return
> the open socket to keep the reservation?
> 
> Also, did we consider passing the file descriptor through to qemu via
> `-incoming fd:$number`?
> 

Sounds promising :) We do invoke QEMU after forking. Is there any
pitfall with that and passing the fd? Or is it enough if we simply don't
touch it or close it in the parent?