[pve-devel] Vitastor block driver plugin

[Fiona Ebner]

Hi,

Am 27.08.25 um 11:13 AM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> Hello,
> 
> On 26/08/2025 16:42, vitalif at yourcmc.ru 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 vitalif at yourcmc.ru:
> 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