From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D125C0BE6
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:41:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4EB8831129
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:40:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:40:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 719084910F;
Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:40:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:40:44 +0100 (CET)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Esi Y <esiy0676+proxmox@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1558621713.2884.1705063244732@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.409.1705062826.335.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240111105123.370028-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<20240111105123.370028-7-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<mailman.409.1705062826.335.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev57
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.065 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
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs 2/2] ssh: document PVE-specific setup
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:41:16 -0000
> Esi Y via pve-devel <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> hat am 12.01.2024 13:33=
CET geschrieben:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:51:20AM +0100, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
> > such as adapted configs and managed files.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > Notes: actual version needs to be inserted!
> >=20
> > pvecm.adoc | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/pvecm.adoc b/pvecm.adoc
> > index 5b5b27b..3a32cfb 100644
> > --- a/pvecm.adoc
> > +++ b/pvecm.adoc
> > @@ -918,6 +918,24 @@ transfer memory and disk contents.
> > =20
> > * Storage replication
> > =20
> > +SSH setup
> > +~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +On {pve} systems, the following changes are made to the SSH configurat=
ion/setup:
> > +
> > +* the `root` user's SSH client config gets setup to prefer `AES` over =
`ChaCha20`
> > +
> > +* the `root` user's `authorized_keys` file gets linked to
> > + `/etc/pve/priv/authorized_keys`, merging all authorized keys within =
a cluster
>=20
> Will you be opening a new fix # thread on this one or intending to keep i=
t as-is (even as the known_hosts changes are rolled out)?
see the cover letter - if this series gets applied in its current form, the=
n changing the (client) key setup (both the keys used, and the authorized k=
eys handling) would be a potential (but not required) follow-up. the main i=
ssue with that is that setups out there might rely on the current behaviour=
(e.g., ssh-copy-id to one node registering the key automatically with all =
nodes in the cluster), so it's likely only possible to switch by default on=
the next major bump, if we decide to go down that route.