From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B89070CF1
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:04:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 58DB522714
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:04:01 +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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D781822703
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:03:59 +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 6489B44C37
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:03:59 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <a4fcc268-d6c2-0cb1-a323-25d74feee194@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:02:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/93.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210928114001.164081-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20210928114001.164081-7-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210928114001.164081-7-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 1.749 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 -3.03 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. [diskmanage.pm, disks.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 06/10] api: disks: initgpt:
explicitly abort for partitions
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: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:04:31 -0000
On 28.09.21 13:39, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> In preparation to extend disk_is_used to support partitions. Without
> this new check, initgpt would also allow partitions once disk_is_used
> supports partitions, which is not desirable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/API2/Disks.pm | 1 +
> PVE/Diskmanage.pm | 10 ++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Disks.pm b/PVE/API2/Disks.pm
> index 96c19fd..25c9ded 100644
> --- a/PVE/API2/Disks.pm
> +++ b/PVE/API2/Disks.pm
> @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>
> my $authuser = $rpcenv->get_user();
>
> + die "$disk is a partition\n" if PVE::Diskmanage::is_partition($disk);
> die "disk $disk already in use\n" if PVE::Diskmanage::disk_is_used($disk);
> my $worker = sub {
> PVE::Diskmanage::init_disk($disk, $param->{uuid});
> diff --git a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm
> index 7aad707..73cbb8b 100644
> --- a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm
> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ sub init_disk {
>
> assert_blockdev($disk);
>
> - # we should already have checked if it is in use in the api call
> - # but we check again for safety
> + # we should already have checked these in the api call, but we check again for safety
> + die "$disk is a partition\n" if is_partition($disk);
> die "disk $disk is already in use\n" if disk_is_used($disk);
>
> my $id = $uuid || 'R';
> @@ -798,6 +798,12 @@ sub get_blockdev {
> return $block_dev;
> }
>
> +sub is_partition {
> + my ($dev_path) = @_;
> +
> + return defined(eval { get_partnum($dev_path) });
> +}
> +
you add `is_partition` here but use it already in patch 04/10, can we reorder that?
Or maybe squash in the addition into 03/10?
> sub locked_disk_action {
> my ($sub) = @_;
> my $res = PVE::Tools::lock_file('/run/lock/pve-diskmanage.lck', undef, $sub);
>