Force-stop VM succeed but VM is still running on host if cloudstack-agent is stopped

[weizhouapache]

Steps to reproduce the issue

on KVM

• create a vm and start it
• stop cloudstack-agent
• force-stop the VM
• VM is stopped but it is still running on kvm host

This seems incorrect to me. but devs/users may have different opinion.

ISSUE TYPE

• Bug Report

COMPONENT NAME

server

CLOUDSTACK VERSION

4.18

CONFIGURATION

OS / ENVIRONMENT

kvm

SUMMARY

STEPS TO REPRODUCE

EXPECTED RESULTS

ACTUAL RESULTS

[DaanHoogland]

@weizhouapache I did merge some kvm related commits. did you verify this on 4.17?

[weizhouapache]

@DaanHoogland
I got the same result on a 4.17.1.0 env

[DaanHoogland]

Ok, not a regression, but still a major bug. This may result in data corruption of the VM is started again.

[Rubueno]

Just my 2 cents: does stopVirtualMachine with forced=true not always behave this way? The caller must know the VM is stopped before calling it: https://cloudstack.apache.org/api/apidocs-4.17/apis/stopVirtualMachine.html

[Hudratronium]

Force stop the VM (vm is marked as Stopped even when command fails to be send to the backend, otherwise a force poweroff is attempted). The caller knows the VM is stopped.

Guess the 'interesting' part is, that there is no further feedback what actually happend while calling the function. In the end that could lead to some nasty situations...
As a 'user' i would expect that, like @weizhouapache descriped it, the VM will be stopped on the host by any means and / or verified that it is stopped. If this isn't possible, cause the agent isn't up or not reachable, i would expect this to throw a 'error'.
I can see why such a function (override of a VM status in DB to be able to deploy it on another host if it is lost) might be usefull. But the overall nameing of the function makes me expect something different then the description in the API docs.

[Rubueno]

Indeed. My team has opened #6629 to prevent regular users from using this parameter.

[SakshiT25]

Hi, I'm interested in working on this issue. Kindly guide me for the further steps.

[DaanHoogland]

Indeed. My team has opened #6629 to prevent regular users from using this parameter.

@Rubueno your request makes sense, and maybe this option should be named forceMark, markDeleted or just mark. It is forcing the marking as deleted in the DB and doesn´t force anything on the backend.

[DaanHoogland]

Hi, I'm interested in working on this issue. Kindly guide me for the further steps.

@SakshiT25 see #5686 (comment)