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 708BA60D89 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:56:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 603EA2004D for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:55:49 +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 id E134020042 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:55:48 +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 A8BFA46DC7 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:55:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:55:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220216104749.47039-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <7cd9f084-8065-4c3f-8a65-a1df2021a848@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <7cd9f084-8065-4c3f-8a65-a1df2021a848@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.134 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemuserver.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH qemu-server] clone disk: force raw format for TPM state 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: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:56:19 -0000 Am 17.02.22 um 14:33 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 16.02.22 11:47, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> The format can't be qcow2 for TPM state, because swtpm reads the file >> directly expecting raw data. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner >> --- >> >> The DiskStorageSelector in the UI hides the format for TPM state, but >> still sends along format=qcow2 triggering this bug. Still, the fix >> should be in the backend. >> > > IMO the frontend shouldn't send that though and in a next major version the backend > should bail on that, as it can be confusing to do such things "magically". > AFAICT the format parameter for disks is mostly (always?) treated as a suggestion and quietly ignored if the storage doesn't support it. It happens for clone (not limited to tpmstate0), allocation via pvesm alloc, allocation via special :0 syntax, importdisk. Of course fixing the frontend for tpmstate0 still makes sense, but I wonder if all of the above should be changed then? >> PVE/QemuServer.pm | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> > > applied, thanks!