From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD58C1FF0AA for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:33:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D72A5214C9; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:33:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:33:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager v5 6/7] close #4369: api: optionally only suggest unique IDs To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260921155410.938337-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20260921155410.938337-7-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260921155410.938337-7-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790087609005 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.531 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: HH5OLTRE5EMKCUIQEOJHFAWHFNUGVFEJ X-Message-ID-Hash: HH5OLTRE5EMKCUIQEOJHFAWHFNUGVFEJ X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 21.09.26 um 5:54 PM schrieb Michael Köppl: > At the moment, the `/cluster/nextid` API endpoint will return the lowest > available VM/CT ID, which means that it will suggest re-using VM IDs. > This can be undesirable, so add an optional check to ensure that it > chooses an ID which is not and has never been in use. > > This optional behaviour is enabled when `unique-next-id: 1` in > the datacenter config, and the previously used IDs are tracked as a > list in the file `/etc/pve/used-guest-ids`. > > Originally-by: Daniel Krambrock > Originally-by: Severen Redwood > Signed-off-by: Michael Köppl > --- > PVE/API2/Cluster.pm | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/API2/Cluster.pm b/PVE/API2/Cluster.pm > index 4e5efbfd9..8178562a5 100644 > --- a/PVE/API2/Cluster.pm > +++ b/PVE/API2/Cluster.pm > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ use PVE::RPCEnvironment; > use PVE::SafeSyslog; > use PVE::Storage; > use PVE::Tools qw(extract_param); > +use PVE::UsedGuestIDs; > > use PVE::API2::ACMEAccount; > use PVE::API2::ACMEPlugin; > @@ -1041,12 +1042,18 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ > > my $dc_conf = PVE::Cluster::cfs_read_file('datacenter.cfg'); > my $next_id = $dc_conf->{'next-id'} // {}; > + my $used_ids; > + if ($dc_conf->{'unique-next-id'}) { > + $used_ids = PVE::UsedGuestIDs::read_list(); > + } else { > + $used_ids = {}; > + } > > my $lower = $next_id->{lower} // 100; > my $upper = $next_id->{upper} // (1000 * 1000); # note, lower than the schema-maximum > > for (my $i = $lower; $i < $upper; $i++) { > - return $i if !defined($idlist->{$i}); > + return $i if !defined($idlist->{$i}) and !defined($used_ids->{$i}); Style nit: use '&&' instead of 'and' for logical expressions > } > > die "unable to get any free VMID in range [$lower, $upper]\n";