From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@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 8AD24B9440
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:39:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 633C093
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:38:59 +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>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:38:58 +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 1DE6F48982;
Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:38:58 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:38:57 +0100
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Cc: Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@linbit.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <qdnb3vypbucbcf7ch2hsjbeo3hqb5bh4whoinl5xglggpt7b7t@igryfncdupdp>
References: <20240223092436.202277-1-roland.kammerer@linbit.com>
<20240223092436.202277-2-roland.kammerer@linbit.com>
<4fd06374-5985-4036-aed0-edf3a4c1ac40@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4fd06374-5985-4036-aed0-edf3a4c1ac40@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.093 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 storage 1/1] storage/plugins: pass scfg to
parse_volname
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:39:29 -0000
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 12:13:05PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 23/02/2024 um 10:24 schrieb Roland Kammerer:
> > This passes the well known $scfg to parse_volname and bumps the API
> > versions accordingly. This allows plugins to access their configuration
> > if necessary.
>
> We discussed this another time here and effectively it can be fine, while
> the need for it seems like a slight smell from our architecture POV, as
> it basically always means that the VMID -> volume mapping is not encoded
> in the name any more (worse UX), it still does not hurt our, or other
> external, existing plug-ins.
>
> So fine to add, but please also the parameter also to the base
> "parse_volname" method including a comment that mentions that this
> is in general not used and only required if the storage cannot
> provide all required information in the volume name.
My thoughts on this: (TLDR: we should just merge it and probably also
consider adding a separate method to get the *format* of a volid)
- Adding the parameter itself is fine, not thinking about how/why it is
used. Generally, it makes sense for all storage API methods to also
know the storage's config anyway.
- Most (if not all) invocations that actually need the owner vmid (which
is the part which becomes expensive here) AFAICT are already within a
more expensive context anyway.
- We have a *lot* of callers which actually only want the disk *format*,
which IMO means we could introduce a separate storage API call for
this (this can be backward compatible with a fallback to the parse
method if the plugin does not provide the new method)
./API2/LXC/Config.pm:199: $format = (PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storage_cfg, $volid))[6];
^ update_vm call, attaching volumes - needs storage access anyway
./API2/LXC.pm:2345: my $format = (PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $source_volid))[6];
./API2/LXC.pm:2368: my $fmt = (PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $source_volid))[6];
^ both in 'move_volume', storage access already expected
./API2/Qemu.pm:155: my ($vtype) = PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $volid);
^ check_storage_access called from create_vm - creation is already needs
to access the storage anyway and can take different amounts of time
based on storages and is not a hot path anyway
./API2/Qemu.pm:441: my ($vtype) = PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $volid);
^ disk creation... also already expensive and not a hot path...
./API2/Qemu.pm:1640: $format = (PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $volid))[6];
^ update_vm call...
./API2/Qemu.pm:4143: my $format = (PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $source_volid))[6];
./API2/Qemu.pm:4166: my $fmt = (PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $source_volid))[6];
^ both in move_disk... duh :)
./API2/Qemu.pm-4866- my (undef, undef, undef, undef, undef, undef, $format) =
PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $drive->{file});
^ resize_vm - also fine...
./CLI/pct.pm-247- my (undef, undef, undef, undef, undef, undef, $format) =
PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storage_cfg, $volid);
^ in 'pct fsck', fine
Vs the rest:
./API2/LXC.pm-1966- my (undef, undef, $owner, undef, undef, undef, $format) =
PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storage_cfg, $volid);
^ a check in a resize operation (not necessarily cheap anyway)
./API2/Qemu.pm:164: (my $vtype, undef, $src_vmid) = PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $src_image);
./API2/Qemu.pm:242: my $src_vmid = (PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $src_volid))[2];
^ both are part of the import-disk code - certainly not cheap to begin
with
./API2/VZDump.pm:295: my (undef, undef, $ownervm) = PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storage_cfg, $volume);
./CLI/pvesm.pm:181: my (undef, undef, $ownervm) = PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storage_cfg, $volume);
^ in both cases: permission check in extracting a config from a backup,
so only affects path based storages and isn't particularly cheap anyway
./CLI/pvesr.pm:41: my ($vtype, undef, $ownervm) = PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storecfg, $volid);
^ replication...
./API2/Storage/FileRestore.pm:201: my (undef, $snap) = PVE::Storage::parse_volname($cfg, $volid);
^ PBS specific...
./CLI/pve7to8.pm:895: ($vtype) = eval { PVE::Storage::parse_volname($storage_cfg, $volid); };
^ happens only on major debian releases...
While within the storage implementations a lot of times the need for it
is storage dependent (eg. path based storages need it because the files
are in vmid-named subdirectories), and besides, it's usually within the
context of doing actual storage operations.
Also, the `volume_is_base_and_used()` call Dietmar mentioned only
happens when destroying or migrating VMs and so I'm not all that worried
about storage access (especially when there's a burst-cache anyway) for
that kind of access anyway...