From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F87B1FF16F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:31:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6350F8A48;
Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:31:52 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:31:18 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <wp6iyf3ylrdu2lgrcrmhfk57x2j3xgsyvzntmphw33j6asmjdp@6inpwihnpyvk>
References: <20250211160825.254167-1-d.kral@proxmox.com>
<20250211160825.254167-24-d.kral@proxmox.com>
<2b549a4a-d9c4-47da-9eb2-2b782ff1dab1@proxmox.com>
<727ecb15-c82c-4ed4-bad3-676d54bddf3e@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <727ecb15-c82c-4ed4-bad3-676d54bddf3e@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.081 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container v2 03/11] alloc_disk: fail fast if
storage does not support content type rootdir
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Daniel Kral wrote:
> On 2/20/25 13:15, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> > I also noticed that we have no check against starting a container with
> > volumes on a storage that does not support 'rootdir'. We have such a
> > check for VMs IIRC. Prohibiting that would also be good, but maybe
> > something for PVE 9 where we can also check for misconfigured
> > containers/storages via the pve8to9 script up front so users can adapt.
>
> I'm preparing the v3 for this now, but I just noticed there actually is a
> assertion for this since e6da5357cc ("fix #3421: allow custom storage
> plugins to support rootfs") if I'm not missing something here in
> __mountpoint_mount(...).
>
> What I don't yet understand is why there is no similar check for this in
> __mountpoint_mount for subvolumes, e.g. I can't start the container if I
> have a mountpoint on a directory storage without 'rootdir' support, but I
> can do so if the mountpoint is on a zfs pool without 'rootdir' support.
>
> Since starting the container results in
>
> run_buffer: 571 Script exited with status 25
> lxc_init: 845 Failed to run lxc.hook.pre-start for container "101"
> __lxc_start: 2034 Failed to initialize container "101"
> TASK ERROR: startup for container '101' failed
>
> for the WebGUI, I'll try to squeeze in a patch to make the error message a
> little more readable if there's something going wrong when mounting.
>
> ---
>
> On another note, I've also noticed that if the root disk / mountpoint is
> already on a storage which does not support 'rootdir', the user is unable to
> move it to another storage... Shouldn't we allow users to do that so they
> can easily move out error states? Either way, this can be a follow-up anway,
> so no need to make this patch series any longer.
The `rootdir` content type is generally a bit wonky currently.
The problem is we're mixing content types and "allowed contents"
together:
For ZFS and btrfs we use subvolumes which are their own *content type*:
"subvol".
For *other* directory storages, we have a special case for `size=0`
where we have a directory of an "unlimited" size, which is also
considered to be of *content type* "subvol".
In the other case we actually allocate the content type *image*,
*BUT*(!!!) the Plugin.pm's default `list_volumes` implementation will
artificially *name* it "rootdir" *if* the *associated VMID* is from a
container by querying the VM list via `PVE::Cluster::get_vmlist()`.
This is not something we can ask external storage plugin devs to do,
IMO.
*rootdir* as an actual *content type* does not *really* exist in
pve-storage, other than as a remnant from openvz times for directories
under the `rootdir/` directory on a directory storage, which I'm fairly
certain we don't support in pve-container...
This means that currently what is referred to as the "rootdir" content
type is actually just the *permission* to put containers on the storage.
This is something we really need to fix up with PVE9 one way or another.
Personally I'd argue the content type should disappear entirely.
`list_volumes` should call use the correct type (images or subvol), and
the rootdir content permission should (and always / indepenent from the
storage and what *content type* we create) in pve-container's disk
allocation code.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel