From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
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 9AE47BA57A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:55:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 82057151D0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:55:18 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:55:18 +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 C33CB47547
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:55:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e87f3679-2f61-4c81-8ee3-7a81b57d973c@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:55:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231213153538.358434-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <de553850-b849-4112-9fa5-bfc4da2e5f67@proxmox.com>
 <ce79c850-6122-4537-bff7-3a5b13270b57@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <ce79c850-6122-4537-bff7-3a5b13270b57@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.484 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 <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:55:18 -0000



On 12/14/23 10:34, Friedrich Weber wrote:
> Not sure how we could extend the global_filter in a reliable way if it
> is customized ... worst case, it might be an option to only rewrite the
> LVM config if it is unchanged (plus our ZFS zvol addition), and leave
> custom configs alone (and add a hint in the upgrade guide)?

Yes, at this point I'm also not sure there is a sane way to handle this.

Alternativel we could add a check to pve7to8, add a note to the release
notes and *maybe* check this in the postinst as well.