Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] Add UI option for boot optional mapped usb device

From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
To: Tyst Marin <moddingfox@foxtek.us>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] Add UI option for boot optional mapped usb device
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:35:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d04bdec6-ce86-45f5-814f-6747a2bbbe36@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a704cc43-53de-49d2-b05e-41c6aa49083b@proxmox.com>

Hi,

On 12/13/24 09:34, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 12/13/24 01:23, Tyst Marin wrote:
>> I'm still not really all that convinced that Map.Modify is better suited over VM.Config.HWType/ 
>> Mapping.Use. Mainly as it seems reasonable to expect the requirement/nonrequirement to still be a 
>> hw level config to the vm and that the map should only have the role of saying which device for 
>> the current node is but not anything about how it should be used by the vm. The type of user that 
>> should make this change should be one with authority over if the vm should be able to boot without 
>> the device. The mapping themselves seem more like someone with the authority to say what that 
>> device is on a particular node. Tho that's just my opinion and i'm happy to agree to disagree on 
>> that point as both places are fairly reasonable and i'm likely being a abit pedantic about it.
> 
> Mhmm.. let me think about this over the weekend, but I currently still lean towards
> the map options since that is what the "higher privileged" user configures, and that person
> should be able to restrict/permit the use of the hardware.
> 

Sorry for it being much longer than a weekend... with the holidays and other things i overlooked
this thread then.

Anyway since no one else commented on this in the meantime and I did not figure out a better
way, I'd say we should go with a 'mode' enum on the mapping itself, with the same reasoning:

The one creating the mapping must have the privilege to manage the device, whereas the
user adding it to the vm might not, only the priv to use it. And IMO the user with
the higher privilege in this case should be the one to decide if it should be
"reserved" or exist when the guest starts.

Hope that still aligns so that it solves your issues.
Would you be willing to provide new version of patches for that?
(if there is any question on how to start on this, just ask)

Best regards
Dominik

_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel