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 7F4BDEE98 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:08:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 68DA81FA3B for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:08:28 +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 ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:08:27 +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 9E96A4265E for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:08:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:08:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Stefan Hrdlicka References: <20221125144008.2988072-1-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com> <20221125144008.2988072-4-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20221125144008.2988072-4-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.027 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. [lxc.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH V4 pve-container 3/7] add linked clone check for LXC container template deletion 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, 13 Dec 2022 13:08:28 -0000 Am 25.11.22 um 15:40 schrieb Stefan Hrdlicka: > prevent partial storage deletion if the template has a linked clone > container > Nit: not too important, but you could mention that we already do the same for VMs > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hrdlicka > --- > src/PVE/LXC.pm | 12 ++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/LXC.pm > index fe68f75..7164462 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/LXC.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC.pm > @@ -865,6 +865,18 @@ sub destroy_lxc_container { > $purge_unreferenced, $ignore_storage_errors) = @_; > > my $volids = {}; > + > + if ($conf->{template}) { > + PVE::LXC::Config->foreach_volume_full($conf, {incldue_unused => 1}, sub { > + my ($ms, $mountpoint) = @_; > + my $volid = $mountpoint->{volume}; > + return if !$volid || $volid =~ m|^/|; Could/should use PVE::LXC::Config->classify_mountpoint($volume) ne 'volume'; rather than $volid =~ m|^/|; to be more future-proof. > + my $result; > + eval{ $result = PVE::Storage::volume_is_base_and_used($storage_cfg, $volid) }; Style nit: my $result = eval { PVE::... }; saves a line > + die "base volume '$volid' is still in use by linked cloned\n" if $result; If the check dies, we cannot tell if the volume is actually an in-use base volume. So we shouldn't just move on with the removal. The error should be propagated except if $ignore_storage_errors is true. > + }); > + } > + > my $remove_volume = sub { > my ($ms, $mountpoint) = @_; >