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 995E49ABCF for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:18:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7318C32168 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:17:52 +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 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:17:51 +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 208334688B for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:17:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 16:17:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Aaron Lauterer References: <20230512124043.888785-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20230512124043.888785-4-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20230512124043.888785-4-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.091 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 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server v2 3/6] migration: fail when aliased volume is detected 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: Mon, 22 May 2023 14:18:22 -0000 Am 12.05.23 um 14:40 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: > Aliased volumes (referencing the same disk image multiple times) can > lead to unexpected behavior in a migration. Not only migration, but snapshots, storage locking, etc. Should we actually care here? I still think it is rather something that people should be made aware for the storage layer. Maybe a big enough warning in the documentation is enough? Since it's not only migration, should we add a warning during VM startup instead/additionally? > @@ -443,6 +445,12 @@ sub scan_local_volumes { > } > }); > > + for my $path (keys %$path_to_volid) { > + my @volids = keys %{$path_to_volid->{$path}}; > + die "detected not supported aliased volumes: '" . join("', '", @volids) . "'" > + if (scalar @volids > 1); Style nit: please use parentheses for scalar > + } > + > foreach my $vol (sort keys %$local_volumes) { > my $type = $replicatable_volumes->{$vol} ? 'local, replicated' : 'local'; > my $ref = $local_volumes->{$vol}->{ref};