From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F2CA1FF0AA for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2026 15:48:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F00D6218CE; Tue, 03 Nov 2026 15:48:03 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Arthur Bied-Charreton Subject: applied: [PATCH pve-firewall] fix #8261: config parser: check prefix length without Net::IP Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 15:47:15 +0100 Message-ID: <179371096808.1744582.16417501069987112549.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20261103121014.169908-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> References: <20261103121014.169908-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793717280458 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.341 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: FYV6YRUMFTOOFM7J3HZ73XCWM4VCZU75 X-Message-ID-Hash: FYV6YRUMFTOOFM7J3HZ73XCWM4VCZU75 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 13:10:14 +0100, Arthur Bied-Charreton wrote: > 99343fe ("firewall: reject cidrs with invalid netmask") made > parse_ip_or_cidr call pve_verify_ip_or_cidr. That function masks the > host bits and constructs a Net::IP object for every alias and IPSet > entry, which is very expensive. > > As noted in the linked bug, a cluster config with about 30k IPSet > entries took 6 seconds to parse vs. 0.4 before this call was introduced. > > [...] Applied, thanks! I folded in `\z` anchors, so a trailing newline stays rejected like with the removed call, plus a test for that, and noted in the commit message that a `/0` prefix with host bits set is now accepted. I also made the API accept that in a follow-up, since clean_cidr treated a literal `/0` like a missing prefix: 82888bc ("api: accept host bits in /0 networks like for other prefixes") [1/1] fix #8261: config parser: check prefix length without Net::IP commit: eea1b88b9eaf8735197943ed2f4353a4a6715069