Hi, Am 27.08.25 um 11:13 AM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Hello, > > On 26/08/2025 16:42, [email protected] wrote: >> You've added a block device driver whitelist in Proxmox 9.0. > It's more intended for specific driver options, but as it die's if a > QEMU block device driver is not in the list it indeed also acts as > allow list for those. >> Could you please add Vitastor there? >> >> I mean this place: >> https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-storage.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/Storage.pm;h=1dde2b751a766a28af8d40df7149936691cca772;hb=HEAD#l145 >> >> $allowed_qemu_blockdev_options in PVE/Storage.pm. >> >> For Vitastor to work correctly, it needs to contain: >> >> vitastor => { image => 1, 'config-path' => 1, 'etcd-host' => 1, >> 'etcd-prefix' => 1 } > > Hmm, we could add that, but would prefer only doing so if the plugin > is directly in QEMU already. That said, this is rather internal, so > maintenance cost would be low, so could be still fine... > I would like some other opinion on it though (CC @Fiona).
I think it would also be nicer if it were an upstream QEMU block driver. Personally, I wouldn't mind including it in the allow-list, with a comment describing the situation, because the chances that another driver also using 'vitastor' as its name lands upstream first are very low. Am 28.08.25 um 12:58 AM schrieb [email protected]: > By the way, why did you add it in the first place? I thought these > options could only contain "trusted" values coming from PVE code > anyway? Or do some drivers really require filtering? It can also be third-party plugins. Some settings are handled via the VM configuration file and should not be set by the plugins, like cache mode, read-only, etc.. Many of the possible block drivers like job-related drivers also don't really make sense for the basic building block that qemu_blockdev_options() is supposed to return. Best Regards, Fiona _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
