Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Advanced partitioning customizations (COMPOSER-2399) #1041

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024

Conversation

achilleas-k
Copy link
Member

@achilleas-k achilleas-k commented Nov 13, 2024

This is the main part of #926 which I split into multiple smaller PRs. With this PR, all of the functionality from the original one is implemented, with some changes to the customization format.


This PR adds a new advanced partitioning customization to the blueprint that has the following structure:

{
  "customizations": {
    "disk": {
      "minsize": "",  # int or string
      "partitions": [
        {
          "type": "plain",
          "fs_type": "",
          "mountpoint": "",
          "label": ""
        },
        {
          "type": "lvm",
          "minsize": "",  # int or string
          "name": "",  # volume group name
          "logical_volumes": [
            {
              "name": "",  # logical volume name
              "fs_type": "",
              "minsize": ""  # int or string
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "type": "btrfs",
          "minsize": "",  # int or string
          "subvolumes": [
            {
              "name": "",
              "mountpoint": ""
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    }
  }
}

When the new customizations are used, the base partition table for the image type is ignored. Instead, a new "custom" partition table is constructed from scratch by iterating through the customizations and creating partitions, volume groups and logical volumes, and btrfs volumes and subvolumes as needed. Boot, EFI, and root partitions are created automatically to make the partition table valid and usable. Parameters such as boot mode and partition table type should be determined by the caller of the function, which should be based on the distro, architecture, and image type. This is, in a way, much simpler than our existing ensureLVM() and ensureBtrfs() functions, which needed to modify an existing partition table's structure in a way that preserved some parts and not others.

The custom partition table creation function (NewCustomPartitionTable()) supports all kinds of valid but perhaps unwanted configurations. For example, it's possible to create a partition table with both LVM volume groups and btrfs volumes, or multiples of each. The customizations however don't allow this, but the structure supports it (see above) in case we want to expand what we support in the future.

Customization validation happens in the blueprint. Invalid values such as duplicate mountpoints, empty btrfs subvolume names, etc, are caught by a validator in the blueprint code itself.

What's next:

  • Add support for defining the partition table type (dos or gpt).
  • Add support for swap partitions and swap logical volumes.
  • Add support for LUKS encryption.

DRAFT

  • Enable the new customizations in distros.
  • Add test configs.

Size values in the blueprint can be defined as either integers,
representing bytes, or strings with SI unit prefixes for bytes.
The conversion for the Filesystem.MinSize happens in both the JSON and
TOML unmarshallers.  With the new partitioning customizations we will
have more conversions of the same type.

This commit extracts the handling into a generic function for
reusability and convenience.

This changes the error messages.  Tests have been updated accordingly.
- New structure that's more powerful than the existing array of
  FilesystemCustomization.
- The general structure defines a (minimum) size for the overall disk
  and an array of partitions.
- Each partition has one of three types:
  - plain: a plain disk partition, meaning partitions with traditional
    filesystem payloads (xfs, ext4, etc).
  - lvm: a partition containing an LVM volume group, which in turn
    will contain one or more LVM logical volumes.
  - btrfs: a partition containing a btrfs volume, which in turn will
    contain one or more subvolumes.
- The new FilesystemTypedCustomization struct supports a label and
  fs_type and no minsize, compared to the old FilesystemCustomization.
  This struct is used to define both the payload of a plain partition
  and the payload of an LVM logical volume.
- The PartitionCustomization has a type and size and embeds three
  substructures, one for each partition type.  Decoding/unmarshalling of
  the PartitionCustomization is handled by a "typeSniffer" which first
  reads the value of the "type" field and then deserialises the whole
  object into a struct that only contains the fields valid for that
  partition type.  This ensures that no fields are set for the
  substructure of a different type than the one defined in the "type"
  fields.
The unmarshaller decodes "type" and "minsize" manually and reuses the
decode* functions from the JSON unmarshaller for each subtype based on
the value of "type".
Add validation functions for DiskCustomization.  Three types of
validation are added:
- Validate(): checks for functionally invalid configurations (bad
  mountpoint names or invalid structures, etc).  The docstring lists all
  properties that are validated.
- ValidateLayoutConstraints(): checks for limitations we imposed
  ourselves as a matter of policy and support on the structure of the
  partition table.  This includes disallowing, for example, multiple LVM
  volume groups, multiple btrfs volumes, or combinations of the two.
  While these layouts are technically valid for a partitioned disk, we
  currently do not support them.
- CheckDiskMountpointsPolicy(): Checks that none of the mountpoints are
  disallowed by the given PathPolicy.

Tests added for all validators.
Define a nested map:
[partition table type] -> [partition type name] -> [partition type ID]
and use it from a private function getPartitionTypeIDfor() for
convenient partition type ID selection.
New function that creates a partition table from scratch based on the
new disk customization.

First, it creates any necessary partitions for the selected boot mode
(BIOS boot, ESP, or both).
Then it determines if a /boot partition is needed based on the
partitions and mountpoints defined in the disk customizations.
Then, it iterates through partitions and creates each one in the order
its defined.
Finally, it creates a root filesystem if one wasn't already defined,
resizes any necessary volumes, relayouts the table (setting all
partition starts and offsets), and generates UUIDs all entities.

Because of the new way the boot partition is handled, the
EnsureBootPartition() function was changed to always add a boot
partition and was renamed to AddBootPartition() to match the new
behaviour.  The tests have been updated accordingly.
Preparing the function to use the new PartitioningCustomization when
set.
For all image types that don't specify a requiredPartitionSizes, add the
defaults that are used in the NewPartitionTable() so that
NewCustomPartitionTable() has similar behaviour.

The only image type that explicitly doesn't specify minimum sizes is the
iot-raw-image, which has a pre-existing empty map.
Add checks for Partitioning customizations in Fedora's checkOptions()
function.  The function now returns an error if:
- Partitioning is defined at the same time as Filesystem
- Partitioning is defined for ostree image types (commit and container).
- The mountpoints in Partitioning violate the mountpoint policies for
  the image type.
@achilleas-k achilleas-k force-pushed the disk/NewCustomPartitionTable branch from c7b4411 to f84f305 Compare November 15, 2024 00:16
@achilleas-k achilleas-k marked this pull request as ready for review November 15, 2024 00:17
One for each variant:
- Plain
- Plain + btrfs
- Plain + lvm
Copy link
Contributor

@mvo5 mvo5 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! This is good stuff, I have some ideas/comments/suggestions inline but no blockers (I think) and I think we can land this and do the nitpicks via a followup. I did not review (most of) the tests (a 4k review is hard) but I will later today/tomorow

pkg/blueprint/partitioning_customizations.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/blueprint/filesystem_customizations.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/blueprint/partitioning_customizations.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/blueprint/partitioning_customizations.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/disk/partition_table.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/disk/partition_table.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/disk/partition_table.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/disk/partition_table.go Show resolved Hide resolved
func addPlainPartition(pt *PartitionTable, partition blueprint.PartitionCustomization, options *CustomPartitionTableOptions) error {
fstype, err := options.getfstype(partition.FSType)
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("error creating partition with mountpoint %q: %w", partition.Mountpoint, err)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(nitpick) we could use this (in all add*) as an errPrefix := fmt.Sprintf("error creating partition with mountpoint %q:", partition.Mountpoint)

// for the substructure of a different type than the one defined in the "type"
// fields.
func (v *PartitionCustomization) UnmarshalJSON(data []byte) error {
errPrefix := "JSON unmarshal:"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the purpose of errPrefix if it is the same for all of the errors? I think it makes the code harder to read when jumping into the middle of it, and it also makes it impossible to grep for things like 'JSON unmarshal: foo failure at position bar'

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

An understandable concern (not being able to grep the source for a full error message). OTOH, it is a bit tedious to have the same string repeated throughout the function in every return and risking a typo or something like that changing just one of the error message prefixes. Idk which is better tbh.

Copy link
Contributor

@mvo5 mvo5 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! I did another pass over the test-cases, I think we miss a test for but we can easily add it in a followup, from my PoV this is good to go and all the comments/ideas can also be done/discussed in followups.

}`,
expected: &blueprint.PartitionCustomization{
Type: "lvm",
MinSize: 99 * datasizes.GiB,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(super nitpick) I wonder if we should just use MinSize: 106300440576 here, for the^Wmost readers it's not obvious that the former translated into 99GiB

input: `{"type":"not-a-partition-type"}`,
errorMsg: "JSON unmarshal: unknown partition type: not-a-partition-type",
},
"number": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(super nitpick) maybe "bad-type/number" ?

},
{
Start: 202 * datasizes.MiB,
Size: 0,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems slightly odd, so we create partitions of size 0 without minsize constraints? I guess this will never happen in practice but is there a scenario where we would want this result or should we error if we do not get size constraints (RequiredMinSizes) for our auto-created partitions? (or am I just missing something here?)

pt.EnsureDirectorySizes(options.RequiredMinSizes)
}

pt.relayout(customizations.MinSize)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AFAICT we have no test for this value, yes? If I do:

diff --git a/pkg/disk/partition_table.go b/pkg/disk/partition_table.go
index 9bed8eb61..213414340 100644
--- a/pkg/disk/partition_table.go
+++ b/pkg/disk/partition_table.go
@@ -1237,7 +1237,7 @@ func NewCustomPartitionTable(customizations *blueprint.DiskCustomization, option
                pt.EnsureDirectorySizes(options.RequiredMinSizes)
        }
 
-       pt.relayout(customizations.MinSize)
+       pt.relayout(0)
        pt.GenerateUUIDs(rng)
 
        return pt, nil

no test fails - should be easy enough to add though, the testing is so nice already which makes extending trivial

},
{
Start: 818 * datasizes.MiB, // the root vg is moved to the end of the partition table by relayout()
Size: 3*datasizes.GiB + 16*datasizes.MiB + datasizes.MiB - (disk.DefaultSectorSize + (128 * 128)), // the sum of the LVs (rounded to the next 4 MiB extent) grows by 1 grain size (1 MiB) minus the unaligned size of the header to fit the gpt footer
Copy link
Contributor

@mvo5 mvo5 Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(nitpick) maybe instead of 128*128 just 4 * datasizes.MiB ? hm, maybe I should just let go but I struggle to see where the 4MiB extend comes from here

expected: &disk.PartitionTable{
Type: disk.PT_GPT, // default when unspecified
UUID: "0194fdc2-fa2f-4cc0-81d3-ff12045b73c8",
Size: 818*datasizes.MiB + 16*datasizes.MiB + 3*datasizes.GiB + datasizes.MiB, // start + size of last partition (VG) + footer
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(nitpick) same as above, it becomes a bit tricky to follow where the 818 comes from, the comment seems to be a bit terse, so maybe a comment like // start + efi + boot + 2 VGs + rootsize or something might slightly more helpful

expected: &disk.PartitionTable{
Type: disk.PT_GPT, // default when unspecified
UUID: "0194fdc2-fa2f-4cc0-81d3-ff12045b73c8",
Size: 714*datasizes.MiB + 168*datasizes.MiB + datasizes.MiB, // start + size of last partition (VG) + footer
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(nitpick) It becomes a bit tricky to follow where the 714 comes from, the comment seems to be a bit terse, so maybe a comment like // start + efi + boot + 3 LVs ` or something might slightly more helpful (same below)

@ondrejbudai ondrejbudai changed the title Advanced partitioning customizations (COMPOSER-2355) Advanced partitioning customizations (COMPOSER-2399) Nov 20, 2024
Copy link
Member

@ondrejbudai ondrejbudai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A handful of docs/error reporting suggestions, but nothing major, thanks for this @achilleas-k , this is awesome!

Partitions []PartitionCustomization `json:"partitions,omitempty" toml:"partitions,omitempty"`
}

// PartitionCustomization defines a single partition on a disk. The Type
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the type descriptions should go to the Type field?

// The type of payload for the partition (optional, defaults to "plain").
Type string `json:"type" toml:"type"`

// Minimum size of the partition that contains the filesystem (for "plain"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the default MinSize for a plain partition? Should it actually be required for plain?

if lvAnySize.MinSize != nil {
size, err := decodeSize(lvAnySize.MinSize)
if err != nil {
return err
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

wrapping this would be nice

@mvo5 mvo5 enabled auto-merge November 20, 2024 16:05
@mvo5 mvo5 added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 20, 2024
Merged via the queue into osbuild:main with commit ead05d4 Nov 20, 2024
19 checks passed
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2024
@achilleas-k achilleas-k changed the title Advanced partitioning customizations (COMPOSER-2399) Advanced partitioning customizations (COMPOSER-2355) Nov 22, 2024
@achilleas-k achilleas-k changed the title Advanced partitioning customizations (COMPOSER-2355) Advanced partitioning customizations (COMPOSER-2399) Nov 22, 2024
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2024
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2024
achilleas-k pushed a commit to mvo5/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
achilleas-k pushed a commit to mvo5/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
Those two are not used outside of `disk` so let's unexport them
to keep a smaller API.

Follows, c.f.
osbuild#1041 (comment)
osbuild#1041 (comment)
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
Those two are not used outside of `disk` so let's unexport them
to keep a smaller API.

Followups, c.f.
osbuild#1041 (comment)
osbuild#1041 (comment)
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit extracts a new `maybeAddBootPartition()` helper to
make the `NewCustomPartitionTable()` a little bit more linear
to read.

Followup, c.f.
osbuild#1041 (comment)
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
Those two are not used outside of `disk` so let's unexport them
to keep a smaller API.

Followups, c.f.
osbuild#1041 (comment)
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit extracts a new `maybeAddBootPartition()` helper to
make the `NewCustomPartitionTable()` a little bit more linear
to read.

Followup, c.f.
osbuild#1041 (comment)
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
Those two are not used outside of `disk` so let's unexport them
to keep a smaller API.

Followups, c.f.
#1041 (comment)
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit ensures that the roles of `Validate{,LayoutConstraints}`
are clearer from the code comments.

Follwup, c.f.
osbuild#1041 (comment)
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit to osbuild/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit extracts a new `maybeAddBootPartition()` helper to
make the `NewCustomPartitionTable()` a little bit more linear
to read.

Followup, c.f.
#1041 (comment)
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit ensures that the roles of `Validate{,LayoutConstraints}`
are clearer from the code comments.

Follwup, c.f.
osbuild#1041 (comment)
achilleas-k pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit ensures that the roles of `Validate{,LayoutConstraints}`
are clearer from the code comments.

Follwup, c.f.
#1041 (comment)
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit to osbuild/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit to osbuild/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit to osbuild/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
mvo5 added a commit to mvo5/images that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2024
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit to osbuild/bootc-image-builder that referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2024
This commit makes use of the excellent work in
osbuild/images#1041 and wires up support
to generate LVM and btrfs volumes via the new disk customizations.

It also add tests.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants