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 3D24D77379 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:45:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2FBDB2FF43 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:45:14 +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 B05DD2FF35 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:45:13 +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 7E07242381 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:45:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:44:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Oguz Bektas , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210714095151.138084-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.424 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [setup.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container v3] fix #3516: fix unmanaged containers 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: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:45:14 -0000 On 20.07.21 13:29, Oguz Bektas wrote: > > any news here? > feels to much like a hack to me, sprinkling that side effects of setting the plugin to base for the whole worker in some "random" helper is far to subtle and dangerous... If, it should have been set only locally, not writing to the $self state, but I've some idea to avoid some of the (less evil) unmanaged hacks we already have.. > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:51:51AM +0200, Oguz Bektas wrote: >> unmanaged containers should run the unified cgroupv2 code from our base >> plugin so that they can start correctly instead of erroring out >> >> Tested-by: Stoiko Ivanov >> Reviewed-by: Stoiko Ivanov >> Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas >> --- >> v2-> v3: >> * added comment from stoiko's reply >> >> >> src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm >> index 9abdc85..4408dcc 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup.pm >> @@ -424,6 +424,10 @@ sub get_ct_os_release { >> sub unified_cgroupv2_support { >> my ($self) = @_; >> >> + # code in base plugin is a generic check and should work >> + # for most distributions >> + $self->{plugin} //= 'PVE::LXC::Setup::Base'; # unmanaged >> + >> $self->protected_call(sub { >> $self->{plugin}->unified_cgroupv2_support(); >> }); >> -- >> 2.30.2