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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C2E7638BF for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:40:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5331E7437 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:40:40 +0100 (CET) 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 C94BF742C for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:40:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9A84C416AA for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:40:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:40:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20220113100831.34113-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20220113100831.34113-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20220113100831.34113-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.134 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] [RFC v10 qemu-server 6/7] api: support VM disk import 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: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 11:40:40 -0000 Am 13.01.22 um 11:08 schrieb Fabian Ebner: > + > + if (my $source = delete $disk->{'import-from'}) { I'm adding a comment here in v11, because otherwise it's not clear where volume activation happens: + # abs_filesystem_path also calls activate_volume when $source is a volid I'm also adding "The source should not be actively used by another process!" to the description of the import-from parameter in v11. > + $source = PVE::Storage::abs_filesystem_path($storecfg, $source, 1); But there are a couple of issues here: 1. There's no protection against using a source volume that's actively used by a guest/other operation. While it's not possible to detect in general, I wonder if we should behave more like a full clone and lock the owning VM? 1a. we could check if the volume is referenced in the config/snapshots, but migration picks up everything, so it might be preferable not to. 1b. the volume might be configured in a VM that doesn't own it... 2. Related: avoiding concurrent activation of volumes on a shared LVM. 3. Related: cannot deactivate any volumes as the might be used by something else. 4. abs_filesystem_path does not work for RBD when krbd=0, because the plugin produces an "rbd:XYZ" path and the -f || -b check doesn't like that. But full clone does work, passing the volid to qemu_img_convert and that's likely what we should do here as well, when we are dealing with an existing volid rather than an absolute path. 5. Add your own ;) TL;DR: I'd like to behave much more like full clone, when we are dealing with a volid rather than an absolute path. > + my $src_size = PVE::Storage::file_size_info($source); > + die "Could not get file size of $source" if !defined($src_size); > + > + my (undef, $dst_volid) = PVE::QemuServer::ImportDisk::do_import(