From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34E2C1FF0C2 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 15:15:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8875121761; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 15:15:09 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 15:15:05 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH container/qemu-server 0/2] qemu: lxc: refuse moving disks/volumes of protected VMs/CTs From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Jakob Klocker" , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20260921153545.406664-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260921153545.406664-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792674905797 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.231 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: ZRBO7UJNAI3LVKEBE2M66SANNUQXAT3F X-Message-ID-Hash: ZRBO7UJNAI3LVKEBE2M66SANNUQXAT3F 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 these patches! Tested the following scenarios: - Attempted to move a disk from a protected VM to another VM. This was denied as expected. - Moved a disk from an unprotected VM to a protected VM, which worked, since adding a disk to a protected VM is not in scope for these patches. - Attempted to move a volume from an unprotected container to a protected one as well as from a protected one to an unprotected one. Both were denied with "cannot move volumes to a protected container". Even though the actions above all work as expected, I noticed that the behavior is different between CTs and VMs regarding moving a disk/volume to another storage. I'm not entirely sure that's in scope, though. I added a comment on the qemu-server patch regarding that. I also looked at the implementation and added comments to the individual patches. On Mon Sep 21, 2026 at 5:35 PM CEST, Jakob Klocker wrote: > According to the documentation, the protection flag on a container > prevents disk remove and update operations. This is currently not > enforced for the move operation, as reported on the mailing list [0]: > a volume can be moved off a protected CT even though the move removes > it from the source. > > VMs are similar, with one difference: the protection flag blocks > removing a disk but still allows adding one. Moving a disk still > removes it from the source, so moving a disk away from a protected VM [snip]