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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2257977526 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:00:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 132A696F3 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:00:13 +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 id D922996E2 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:00:11 +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 A363241A88 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:00:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <95dc2d98-ec11-e8c9-1761-9fe91d18af1a@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:59:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Oguz Bektas , Proxmox VE development discussion , Wolfgang Bumiller References: <20210714095151.138084-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20210720114059.p5k32l5jap3nudz3@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> <84bdf0fe-783e-1ed8-9fa9-70b817ea5221@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.423 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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 Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [setup.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container v3] fix #3516: fix unmanaged containers 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, 20 Jul 2021 12:00:13 -0000 On 20.07.21 13:51, Oguz Bektas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:49:45PM +0200, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 20.07.21 13:40, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:51:51AM +0200, Oguz Bektas wrote: >>>> unmanaged containers should run the unified cgroupv2 code from our base >>>> plugin so that they can start correctly instead of erroring out >>>> >>>> Tested-by: Stoiko Ivanov >>>> Reviewed-by: Stoiko Ivanov >>>> Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas >>>> --- >>>> v2-> v3: >>>> * added comment from stoiko's reply >>>> >>>> >>>> src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm | 4 ++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm >>>> index 9abdc85..4408dcc 100644 >>>> --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm >>>> +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm >>>> @@ -424,6 +424,10 @@ sub get_ct_os_release { >>>> sub unified_cgroupv2_support { >>>> my ($self) = @_; >>>> >>>> + # code in base plugin is a generic check and should work >>>> + # for most distributions >>>> + $self->{plugin} //= 'PVE::LXC::Setup::Base'; # unmanaged >>> >>> This has the side effect that all later checks for unmanaged containers >>> via `$self->{plugin}` are broken. >>> Please either move this *into* the `protected_call` below (and add a >>> comment that the assignment is temporary due to how `protected_call` >>> works), or cleanup this change afterwards (but that would need to be >>> `die`-safe (iow. would need an eval around the `protected_call`) >>> >> >> for that it could have just used a local variable, e.g.: >> >> my $plugin = $self->{plugin} // 'PVE::LXC::Setup::Base'; # fallback to base for unmanaged >> >> $self->protected_call(sub { $plugin->unified_cgroupv2_support() }); >> >> but I'd rather avoid adding more of those "unmanaged hacks" in general. > > i think this is acceptable approach, if you don't mind i'd send another > version with that. no. As said, I do not want any more hacks even if they're at least correct like the proposal. > > or we can simply skip it like in the v1 but with a true return value to > omit systemd error message > or we can avoid further hacks, separate the plugin ABI in an actual "interface only" module which base and a new unmanaged plugin depends on, so that we can actually drop that special case and with it all the `return if !$self->{plugin}; # unmanaged` stanzas completely...