Support using a stub drive of a deleted container

[sipsma]

As part of #230 @kzys noticed that if a container is deleted, the stub drive for it cannot be re-used. This results in situations like the following:

1. Call CreateVM with ContainerCount set to 2
2. Start container A
3. Start container B, let it exit and then Delete it.
4. Try to start container C, it will fail due to being out of stub drives

In theory, once container B is deleted, the stub drive is no longer needed and should be able to be used by container C. The implementation would need an update to allow this. To be clear, this is just re-use of stub-drives within the context of a single VM (not across different VMs, which creates a bunch of other concurrency related issues).

[Zyqsempai]

@sipsma Can I help with that issue? Sounds interesting.

[sipsma]

@Zyqsempai This issue was opened as an idea and while I think it's a good feature for us to have, it's something I'd want to run by others on the team first to make sure everyone else is on board with making this change now. I will ask others to post any concerns here or will update if there are no concerns.

In general though, it will definitely be a fairly involved change but really appreciate all the contributions you've made lately and would be happy for you to help out if we decide to go forward with it! Will get back on the issue in the next few days

[Zyqsempai]

@sipsma Got it, if there is any other issue I can help you with, just ping me, will be glad to work on something!

[sipsma]

@Zyqsempai there are no concerns from the team on making this change.

There is an unrelated issue that I have a draft for which may require refactoring of stub drives (#296). I would like to make that change first in order to minimize conflict resolution with the changes required here. I will try to get that draft finalized and merged in the next week, at which time you should be able to get going on this change if still interested! I'll update this issue at that time.

[sipsma]

@Zyqsempai Just an update, I sent out PR #332 to address #296. Once that's merged, you should be good to start working on this issue if still interested. Apologies for the delays, I ran into #325 in the midst of #332, which derailed me for a few days.

[sipsma]

@Zyqsempai I just merged #332, so this issue should be ready to be worked on! Let us know if you're still interested in handling it