From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.reiter@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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C295770654
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:29:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B0410F276
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:29:29 +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 3B01EF25F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:29:25 +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 06E8A42B43
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:29:25 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20210604094748.3383339-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<20210604094748.3383339-3-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <a3c8a6a5-1c3b-573b-b187-edf763c1259f@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:29:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210604094748.3383339-3-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.978 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 2/6] drive: factor out read-only
helper
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: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:29:29 -0000
On 6/4/21 11:47 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> we also need it for efidisks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/QemuServer.pm | 8 ++------
> PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm | 10 ++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm
> index 25ac052..0d49415 100644
> --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm
> +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ use PVE::QemuServer::Helpers qw(min_version config_aware_timeout);
> use PVE::QemuServer::Cloudinit;
> use PVE::QemuServer::CGroup;
> use PVE::QemuServer::CPUConfig qw(print_cpu_device get_cpu_options);
> -use PVE::QemuServer::Drive qw(is_valid_drivename drive_is_cloudinit drive_is_cdrom parse_drive print_drive);
> +use PVE::QemuServer::Drive qw(is_valid_drivename drive_is_cloudinit drive_is_cdrom drive_is_read_only parse_drive print_drive);
> use PVE::QemuServer::Machine;
> use PVE::QemuServer::Memory;
> use PVE::QemuServer::Monitor qw(mon_cmd);
> @@ -3662,11 +3662,7 @@ sub config_to_command {
> my $drive_cmd = print_drive_commandline_full($storecfg, $vmid, $drive, $pbs_name);
>
> # extra protection for templates, but SATA and IDE don't support it..
> - my $read_only = PVE::QemuConfig->is_template($conf)
> - && $drive->{interface} ne 'sata'
> - && $drive->{interface} ne 'ide';
> -
> - $drive_cmd .= ',readonly=on' if $read_only;
> + $drive_cmd .= ',readonly=on' if drive_is_read_only($conf, $drive);
>
> push @$devices, '-drive',$drive_cmd;
> push @$devices, '-device', print_drivedevice_full(
> diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm b/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm
> index 146a4ab..0408e32 100644
> --- a/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm
> +++ b/PVE/QemuServer/Drive.pm
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ our @EXPORT_OK = qw(
> is_valid_drivename
> drive_is_cloudinit
> drive_is_cdrom
> +drive_is_read_only
> parse_drive
> print_drive
> );
> @@ -422,6 +423,15 @@ sub drive_is_cdrom {
> return $drive && $drive->{media} && ($drive->{media} eq 'cdrom');
> }
>
> +sub drive_is_read_only {
I really don't like this name, this checks if the drive *should* be
read-only, and only related to template backups, not in general.
Maybe 'drive_template_read_only'?
The function does two pretty unrelated things in general IMO, so maybe
it would be clearer to do the is_template check at call site and make
this 'drive_supports_read_only', even if it causes a little bit more
duplication.
> + my ($conf, $drive) = @_;
> +
> + return 0 if !PVE::QemuConfig->is_template($conf);
> +
> + # don't support being marked read-only
> + return $drive->{interface} ne 'sata' && $drive->{interface} ne 'ide';
> +}
> +
> # ideX = [volume=]volume-id[,media=d][,cyls=c,heads=h,secs=s[,trans=t]]
> # [,snapshot=on|off][,cache=on|off][,format=f][,backup=yes|no]
> # [,rerror=ignore|report|stop][,werror=enospc|ignore|report|stop]
>