From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D871FF15C for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 12:30:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C0BBCE098; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 12:31:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0e8fd740-c0b1-4e9c-9e4f-9b4ef7f99f47@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 12:31:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , Christoph Heiss References: <20250711080302.163858-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <55101ee3-e736-49cc-b50b-768e6a7ad0f4@proxmox.com> <52c7deee-e299-4e72-a969-c0cb84c81d55@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <52c7deee-e299-4e72-a969-c0cb84c81d55@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.043 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] run-env: fallback to all zero mac for interfaces without X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 7/11/25 12:25, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 11.07.25 um 12:03 schrieb Christian Ebner: >> On 7/11/25 11:47, Christoph Heiss wrote: >>> On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 11:14 AM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>>> Am 11.07.25 um 10:27 schrieb Gabriel Goller: >>> [..] >>>>> To be honest I'd rather filter out this interface. A zeroed out mac is >>>>> reserved for loopback interfaces and usually isn't routed. >>>> >>>> It's not like we set the MAC to zero, rather it's just used for displaying. >>>> This way an admin can at least see the interface and select it for usage, >>>> even if they then need to correctly configure it manually after installation >>>> to make it actually work. >>>> >>>> That said, as manual intervention is required either way, filtering out >>>> might be OK, but your arguments here are IMO not justifying why that route >>>> should be chosen. FWIW, a third alternative might be that the rust >>>> implementation might also just have to learn to not expect a MAC... >>> >>> FWIW, there's also been a Bugzilla report a few days about this problem >>> [0]. >>> >>> I've took a cursory glance at going about the third route here, although >>> didn't really get to write much code due to other, more pressing things. >>> >>> If anyone wants to pick that up, short summary w.r.t the Rust part: >>> >>> - It's mostly about doing a `String` -> `Option` conversion for >>> `proxmox_installer_common::setup::Interface`, the MAC address from >>> that is then only ever used the post-hook. >>> - There's also `proxmox_auto_installer::sysinfo::NetdevWithMac`, which >>> tries to read the MAC address from /sys/class/net. >>> >>> [0] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6508 >> >> Okay, can have a look at this too, but do feel free to beat me to it! >> Not so familiar with the installer codebase and this smells like having >> some regression potential. > > Yeah, maybe, that's why simply falling back to some "unknown"-like value > sounded promising to me. If we do not have any parsing/checks for the MAC > value, we could indeed fall back to a literal "unknown", then it would be > noticed if we try to use it (e.g., for interface link name-pinning in the > installer) > > btw. what does the interface looks like, does it really have no MAC > in the ip link output? No, the only content for the link line is `link/none`, no mac and brd address. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel