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 1983E82F3 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:17:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E4F5B244F for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:17:13 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:17:10 +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 46C8A43DB1 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:17:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <94fa3244-7649-aa49-534b-0f1eebb5fab0@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:17:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Stefan Hrdlicka References: <20221115105526.3428334-1-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com> <20221115105526.3428334-5-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20221115105526.3428334-5-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL 0.028 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=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 =?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF =?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH V3 qemu-server 4/6] add ignore-storage-errors for removing VM with missing storage 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: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 12:17:44 -0000 Am 15.11.22 um 11:55 schrieb Stefan Hrdlicka: > @@ -2341,10 +2346,10 @@ sub destroy_vm { > > my $volid = $drive->{file}; > return if !$volid || $volid =~ m|^/|; > - > - die "base volume '$volid' is still in use by linked cloned\n" > - if PVE::Storage::volume_is_base_and_used($storecfg, $volid); > - > + my $result; > + eval { $result = PVE::Storage::volume_is_base_and_used($storecfg, $volid) }; > + die "Couldn't remove one or more disks: $@\n" if $@ && !$ignore_storage_errors; This error message is wrong. The check failed, not the removal. The check should be repeated in vdisk_free anyways and you should get the appropriate error then below :) AFAIU base volumes should still survive if they are still referenced by linked clones, even when ignore-storage-errors is used (IMHO good). Is that correct? Nothing new and not directly related: I noticed that for containers, we don't have this heads-up check. Maybe worth adding there too? Arguably minor issue is that I can have a container template with a disk on lvm-thin and a second disk on non-lvm-thin. Even if there is a linked clone, removing the template might remove the lvm-thin disk, and then fail, because the second disk is referenced. > + die "base volume '$volid' is still in use by linked cloned\n" if $result; > }); > } > > @@ -2370,7 +2375,8 @@ sub destroy_vm { > include_unused => 1, > extra_keys => ['vmstate'], > }; > - PVE::QemuConfig->foreach_volume_full($conf, $include_opts, $remove_owned_drive); > + eval { PVE::QemuConfig->foreach_volume_full($conf, $include_opts, $remove_owned_drive); }; > + die "Couldn't remove one or more disks: $@\n" if $@ && !$ignore_storage_errors; So, $removed_owned_drive already ignores all storage errors beside if PVE::Storage::path() fails right? Can't we just add an eval around that and be done? No need for a new ignore-storage-errors parameter. Most storage errors are already ignored even without that parameter right now! I don't think it's a big issue to start ignoring the few missing ones as well? > > for my $snap (values %{$conf->{snapshots}}) { > next if !defined($snap->{vmstate});