From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
To: "Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>,
"Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-guest-common 1/1] partially fix #2530: snapshots: add pre/post/failed-snapshot hooks
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 13:57:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dcf29785-0d2f-2b63-832a-594557e2df35@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1671625943.twv14tw18p.astroid@yuna.none>
On 12/21/22 13:41, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> On December 21, 2022 12:26 pm, Stefan Hanreich wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/22 11:44, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>>> this is v2, right? ;)
>>
>> Oh no - for some reason it's only in the cover letter..
>>
>>>
>>> On December 12, 2022 2:43 pm, Stefan Hanreich wrote:
>>>> This commit adds hooks to the snapshotting process, which can be used
>>>> to run additional setup scripts to prepare the VM for snapshotting.
>>>>
>>>> Examples for use cases include:
>>>> * forcing processes to flush their writes
>>>> * blocking processes from writing
>>>> * altering the configuration of the VM to make snapshotting possible
>>>>
>>>> The prepare step has been split into two parts, so the configuration
>>>> can be locked a bit earlier during the snapshotting process. Doing it
>>>> this way ensures that the configuration is already locked during the
>>>> pre-snapshot hook. Because of this split, the VM config gets written
>>>> in two stages now, rather than one.
>>>>
>>>> In case of failure during the preparation step - after the lock is
>>>> written - error handling has been added so the lock gets released
>>>> properly. The failed-snapshot hook runs when the snapshot fails, if
>>>> the pre-snapshot hook ran already. This enables users to revert any
>>>> changes done during the pre-snapshot hookscript.
>>>
>>> see below
>>>
>>>> The preparation step assumes that the hook does not convert the
>>>> current VM into a template, which is why the basic checks are not
>>>> re-run after the pre-snapshot hook. The storage check runs after the
>>>> pre-snapshot hook, because the hook might get used to setup the
>>>> storage for snapshotting. If the hook would run after the storage
>>>> checks, this becomes impossible.
>>>>
>>>> cfs_update() gets called after every invocation of a hookscript, since
>>>> it is impossible to know which changes get made by the hookscript.
>>>> Doing this ensures that we see the updated state of the CFS after the
>>>> hookscript got invoked.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> src/PVE/AbstractConfig.pm | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/AbstractConfig.pm b/src/PVE/AbstractConfig.pm
>>>> index a0c0bc6..3bff600 100644
>>>> --- a/src/PVE/AbstractConfig.pm
>>>> +++ b/src/PVE/AbstractConfig.pm
>>>> @@ -710,8 +710,7 @@ sub __snapshot_prepare {
>>>>
>>>> my $snap;
>>>>
>>>> - my $updatefn = sub {
>>>> -
>>>> + my $run_checks = sub {
>>>> my $conf = $class->load_config($vmid);
>>>>
>>>> die "you can't take a snapshot if it's a template\n"
>>>> @@ -721,15 +720,21 @@ sub __snapshot_prepare {
>>>>
>>>> $conf->{lock} = 'snapshot';
>>>>
>>>> - my $snapshots = $conf->{snapshots};
>>>> -
>>>> die "snapshot name '$snapname' already used\n"
>>>> - if defined($snapshots->{$snapname});
>>>> + if defined($conf->{snapshots}->{$snapname});
>>>> +
>>>> + $class->write_config($vmid, $conf);
>>>> + };
>>>>
>>>> + my $updatefn = sub {
>>>> + my $conf = $class->load_config($vmid);
>>>> my $storecfg = PVE::Storage::config();
>>>> +
>>>> die "snapshot feature is not available\n"
>>>> if !$class->has_feature('snapshot', $conf, $storecfg, undef, undef, $snapname eq 'vzdump');
>>>>
>>>> + my $snapshots = $conf->{snapshots};
>>>> +
>>>> for my $snap (sort keys %$snapshots) {
>>>> my $parent_name = $snapshots->{$snap}->{parent} // '';
>>>> if ($snapname eq $parent_name) {
>>>> @@ -753,7 +758,32 @@ sub __snapshot_prepare {
>>>> $class->write_config($vmid, $conf);
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> - $class->lock_config($vmid, $updatefn);
>>>> + $class->lock_config($vmid, $run_checks);
>>>> +
>>>> + eval {
>>>> + my $conf = $class->load_config($vmid);
>>>> + PVE::GuestHelpers::exec_hookscript($conf, $vmid, "pre-snapshot", 1);
>>>> + };
>>>> + my $err = $@;
>>>> +
>>>> + PVE::Cluster::cfs_update();
>>>> +
>>>> + if ($err) {
>>>> + $class->remove_lock($vmid, 'snapshot');
>>>> + die $err;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I wonder if we don't also want to call the 'failed-snapshot' phase when just the
>>> pre-snapshot invocation failed? might be possible to combine the error handling
>>> then, although I am not sure it makes it more readable if combined..
>>>
>>
>> I thought about it, but I thought that if the user die's in his perl
>> script he should be able to run any cleanup code before that. This
>> doesn't consider any problems in the hookscript unforeseen by the user
>> though, so I think your approach is better, since it is easier to use.
>> This places less burden on the author of the hookscript. Might make the
>> code a bit more convoluted though (depending on how we want to handle
>> errors in failed-snapshot), but the upsides are way better imo.
>>
>> One thing that would be easier with making the user do his cleanup in
>> pre-snapshot would be that the pre-snapshot hook knows exactly what
>> failed in pre-snapshot, so cleanup-code could use that information to
>> skip certain steps. But again, it assumes that pre-snapshot will
>> properly handle any possible error, which might be a bit much to assume.
>
> yes, there is always the question of whether the hookscript does (proper) error
> handling.. but if it does, an additional call to failed-snapshot shouldn't hurt
> since that should be covered as well (in this case, if we pass the information
> that prepare failed, it could be a no-op for example).
>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (my $err = $@) {
>>>> + my $conf = $class->load_config($vmid);
>>>> + PVE::GuestHelpers::exec_hookscript($conf, $vmid, "failed-snapshot");
>>>
>>> this exec_hookscript needs to be inside an eval {}, with warn in case it fails..
>>
>> Isn't this already handled by the exec_hookscript function, since I am
>> not passing $stop_on_error ? It should exit with warn instead of die
>> then. Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
>>
>> See:
>> https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-guest-common.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/GuestHelpers.pm;h=b4ccbaa73a3fd08ba5d34350ebd57ee31355035b;hb=HEAD#l125
>
> ah yeah, missed that - thanks for pointing it out :)
>
>>>
>>> also, this call here happens when preparing for making the snapshot, after
>>> possibly saving the VM state, but before taking the volume snapshots..
>>>
>>
>> This should be alleviated by the envvars you proposed below, because
>> then we could pass that information to the hookscript and the user
>> decides what to do with this information, right?
>
> yes exactly, this is part of the issue that could be solved by passing more
> information to the hook script.
>
>>>> + PVE::Cluster::cfs_update();
>>>> +
>>>> + $class->remove_lock($vmid, 'snapshot');
>>>> + die $err;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> return $snap;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -837,11 +867,18 @@ sub snapshot_create {
>>>>
>>>> if ($err) {
>>>> warn "snapshot create failed: starting cleanup\n";
>>>> +
>>>> + PVE::GuestHelpers::exec_hookscript($conf, $vmid, "failed-snapshot");
>>>
>>> eval + warn as well
>>
>> see above
>
> indeed
>
>>>
>>> this call here happens when the volume snapshots might or might not have been
>>> created already (depending on what exactly the error cause is).
>>>
>>
>> same here - should be alleviated by adding envvars, right?
>>
>>>> + PVE::Cluster::cfs_update();
>>>> +
>>>> eval { $class->snapshot_delete($vmid, $snapname, 1, $drivehash); };
>>>> warn "$@" if $@;
>>>> die "$err\n";
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + PVE::GuestHelpers::exec_hookscript($conf, $vmid, "post-snapshot");
>>>
>>> and here we have a similar issue (no eval), what should happen if post-snapshot
>>> fails?
>>>
>>> A die immediately (very likely wrong, current)
>>> B eval + warn but proceed with commit (possibly leaving leftover hook changes around)
>>> C eval + warn, call failed-snapshot but proceed with commit (gives the
>>> hookscript a chance to cleanup, but how does it differentiate between the
>>> different failed-snapshot call sites?)
>>> D eval + delete snapshot (seems suboptimal)
>>> E eval + call failed-snapshot + delete snapshot (same, and also the issue of the
>>> hookscript being able to know what's going on again)
>>>
>>> B and C seem most sensible to me, but C adds to the issue of "missing
>>> failed-snapshot context", depending on what the hookscript is doing..
>>
>> again, see above - I think it currently actually behaves like B because
>> of how exec_hookscript works if I understand correctly.
>
> yes. but the question is whether that is good ;) I guess switching to C would
> require passing stop_on_error and wrapping in eval..
> >> Similar idea to not running the failed-snapshot hook if pre-snapshot
>> fails. I thought that the user should be aware that his hookscript
>> failed at some point and run possible cleanup code before returning. As
>> I said above that's probably a worse idea than just running
>> failed-snapshot. It also enables the user to just have all the cleanup
>> handled by failed-snapshot instead of having to add it to pre/post/failed.
>
> like mentioned above, doing
>
> if !pre {
> failed
> }
>
> if !snapshot {
> failed
> }
>
> if !post {
> failed
> }
>
> doesn't stop the user from handling all errors in the phase itself, and then
> doing `exit 1` to fail the hookscript, with the failed phase only handling
> actual "snapshotting didn't work" errors - as long as we pass along *why* we are
> calling the failed phase.
>
This sounds like the best way to implement this (and would then behave
like you described in option C). I will implement it this way together
with the envvars you proposed. Again, thanks for the feedback!
>>> one way to pass information is via the environment, we do that for the migration
>>> case already (setting PVE_MIGRATED_FROM, so that the pre-start/post-start
>>> hookscript can know the start happens in a migration context, and where to
>>> (possibly) find the guest config..
>>>
>>> for example, we could set PVE_SNAPSHOT_PHASE here, and have prepare/commit/post
>>> as sub-phases, or even pass a list of volumes already snapshotted (or created,
>>> in case of vmstate), or
>>
>> That's a good idea, I'll look into sensible values for
>> PVE_SNAPSHOT_PHASE as well as look into how we could pass the
>> information about volumes to the hookscript best.
>>
>>> obviously setting the environment is only allowed in a forked worker context,
>>> else it would affect the next API endpoint handled by the pveproxy/pvedaemon/..
>>> process, so it might be worth double-checking and cleaning up to avoid
>>> side-effects with replication/migration/.. if we go down that route..
>>>
>>
>> very good remark - thanks. I would not have thought of it even though it
>> is kinda obvious now you pointed it out.
>
> well, I just realized that with replication/migration we are not doing a full
> guest snapshot anyway, so that should be irrelevant ;) it just leaves container
> backups in snapshot mode where we need to be careful to clean the env so that
> the next container's hookscript execution in a single vzdump job doesn't see
> wrong information.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-21 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-12 13:43 [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 pve-guest-common/pve-docs] Add " Stefan Hanreich
2022-12-12 13:43 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-docs 1/1] examples: add pre/post/failed-snapshot hooks to example hookscript Stefan Hanreich
2022-12-12 13:43 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-guest-common 1/1] partially fix #2530: snapshots: add pre/post/failed-snapshot hooks Stefan Hanreich
2022-12-21 10:44 ` Fabian Grünbichler
2022-12-21 11:26 ` Stefan Hanreich
2022-12-21 12:41 ` Fabian Grünbichler
2022-12-21 12:57 ` Stefan Hanreich [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=dcf29785-0d2f-2b63-832a-594557e2df35@proxmox.com \
--to=s.hanreich@proxmox.com \
--cc=f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com \
--cc=pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox