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 5B9A29860E for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:21:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A8CA476D for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:21:18 +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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:21:17 +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 679D543005 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:21:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:21:16 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Fiona Ebner Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= Message-ID: References: <20231114140204.27679-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20231114140204.27679-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <1700038325.l2cibe7y7o.astroid@yuna.none> <810f3423-7f55-4915-96c8-550241b191de@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <810f3423-7f55-4915-96c8-550241b191de@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.101 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] [RFC qemu-server 1/1] partially fix #4501: migration: start vm: move port reservation and usage closer together 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: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:21:48 -0000 On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 11:22:46AM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 15.11.23 um 11:12 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller: > > > > What about adding an option to `next_migrate_port()` to actually return > > the open socket to keep the reservation? > > > > Also, did we consider passing the file descriptor through to qemu via > > `-incoming fd:$number`? > > > > Sounds promising :) We do invoke QEMU after forking. Is there any > pitfall with that and passing the fd? Or is it enough if we simply don't > touch it or close it in the parent? We just have to explicitly remove the CLOEXEC flag from the fd before the exec() happens. Since we use `run_command` for the exec, I've been wondering if maybe `run_command` itself should get an `fds => [ numbers ]` list it should drop the CLOEXEC on before opening the subprocess and then restoring the original flags afterwards.