From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <o.bektas@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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E8069E66
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 03A088E15
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DCEA68E06
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:23 +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 A637F436DF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:00:23 +0100
From: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
To: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <20210215100023.GA10877@gaia.proxmox.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>,
Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210210160142.1326921-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
<20210210160142.1326921-3-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
<20210210172059.6b59bc06@rosa.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210210172059.6b59bc06@rosa.proxmox.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 1.495 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC 2/2 manager] proxy: allow setting BIND_IP for
pveproxy
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: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:02:25 -0000
hi,
thanks for responding!
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this!
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:01:42 +0100
> Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com> wrote:
>
> > default to 0.0.0.0 to preserve backwards behavior
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm b/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm
> > index 571a6bf5..ce1d42a6 100755
> > --- a/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm
> > +++ b/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm
> > @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ sub init {
> > die "unable to open lock file '${accept_lock_fn}' - $!\n";
> >
> > my $family = PVE::Tools::get_host_address_family($self->{nodename});
> > - my $socket = $self->create_reusable_socket(8006, undef, $family);
> > + my $bind_ip = $proxyconf->{BIND_IP} // '0.0.0.0'; # default
> any reason why the '0.0.0.0' is necessary? (the socket got created with
> undef before after all) - Given that I find the inner workings of perl
> IO::Socket::IP (which gets passed the arguments in create_reusable_socket
> eventually) a bit surprising in certain situations I think leaving it as
> it was might have its merit
after looking at it more it looks like `undef` might be better indeed.
>
> did you test it in a few different scenarios? - e.g.:
> * ipv6 only host
> * dual-stacked host
> * host with multiple interfaces and IPs
no, i've only tested ipv4 -- i'll take a look at these too
>
> > + my $socket = $self->create_reusable_socket(8006, $bind_ip, $family);
> >
> > my $dirs = {};
> >
>