From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1015C1FF09B for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 15:22:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 08EA221780; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 15:22:30 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 15:17:08 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH many v7 00/24] add option to prevent suggesting previously used VMIDs From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Fiona Ebner" , =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20261005144805.825538-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <2165b7be-5371-4922-b4ce-c783306aedde@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <2165b7be-5371-4922-b4ce-c783306aedde@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1791811028967 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.295 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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 Message-ID-Hash: WOEYNMYCY6M4MY63YJSB2OMAJXMPG54U X-Message-ID-Hash: WOEYNMYCY6M4MY63YJSB2OMAJXMPG54U X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thanks for having another look at this series! On Fri Oct 9, 2026 at 6:22 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 05.10.26 um 4:49 PM schrieb Michael K=C3=B6ppl: >> This is based on the original series [0] by Severen Redwood and Daniel >> Krambrock. It is rebased on the latest master branches and incorporates >> the feedback from v6 [2]. >> >> The last patch for cluster, qemu-server and container and the last two >> for guest-common and manager add the optional enforcement of the >> next-id settings. The rest of the series works without them. Since IDs >> are recorded before a guest exists and stay recorded if its creation >> fails, retrying a failed creation with the same ID is rejected when >> both 'enforce' and 'unique' are set. > > Can we do a PVE::Cluster::check_vmid_unused($vmid, 1) call in > PVE::GuestID::register_used_id() rather than passing along the state if > existing from the call sites? Would keep the interface a bit cleaner and > avoid the need for the last qemu-server and container patches. And > GuestID already depends on Cluster. Good point, that makes more sense than making every call site pass it in anyway! Will adapt it in a v8, thanks! > >> >> I kept the trailers from the original series where I made only minimal >> changes, but added markers (MK: ...) in those cases. For bigger >> changes, I changed the `Co-authored-by` and `Signed-off-by` trailers to >> `Signed-off-by`. I removed Aaron's T-b and R-b trailers since it's been >> a long time and the trailers might be misleading considering the series >> has changed in some of its implementation details overall. >> >> Dependencies: >> - guest-common needs a versioned build and runtime dependency on >> libpve-cluster-perl with virtual-guest/used-guest-ids registered, >> since loading PVE::AbstractConfig now registers the file. >> - qemu-server and container need a versioned dependency on >> libpve-guest-common-perl with register_used_id() and its 'existing' >> option. >> - guest-common with enforcement should break older qemu-server and >> container, which do not exempt destroying existing guests from it. > > Is this only relevant if we would bump before enforcement? If all > changes come in the same bump it won't matter, or? And if going with my > suggestion above it should also be fine. Should only be relevant if there's a version bump before enforcement, yes. That was formulated a bit too drastically, but wanted to point it out in some way. In any case, I'll use your suggestion from above anyway, so should be fine. Thanks! > >> - manager needs versioned dependencies on libpve-cluster-perl (next-id >> 'unique' and 'enforce') and libpve-guest-common-perl >> (get_next_unused_id() and assert_id_satisfies_next_id_settings()). >> > > Two more minor issues in 5/24 and 17/24. > > Other than that, consider the series: > > Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner > Tested-by: Fiona Ebner