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 B09D1BA624 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:17:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 912F01551A for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:17:09 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:17:08 +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 AC15847565 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:17:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:17:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Hanreich References: <20231213153538.358434-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> From: Friedrich Weber In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.113 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] postinst: Filter RADOS block devices 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: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:17:09 -0000 On 14/12/2023 10:56, Stefan Hanreich wrote:> On 12/14/23 10:55, Stefan Hanreich wrote: >> Yes, at this point I'm also not sure there is a sane way to handle this. > > doing it for new installations should be possible though Yeah, I'd agree that it's probably the safest to not rewrite existing global_filters. So we could just update the snippet that is added by the pve-manager postinst to also include the rbd filter, but keep the general rewriting logic the same (meaning, we do not touch the file if it contains LVM_CONF_MARKER). And then add some check to pve7to8 and a note to the upgrade guide. I think even then, we would get a kind-of automatic migration path for free (I haven't actually tested this though): When upgrading from PVE 7 to 8, users are (IIRC always) asked whether they want to keep /etc/lvm/lvm.conf or install the package maintainers version. If they choose the package maintainers version (which seems reasonable if they never edited the LVM config), lvm.conf is replaced with the upstream lvm default config, and subsequently our pve-manager postinst would add the global filter again, but this time with the rbd filter?