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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C8C771434 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:04:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F11D82EE60 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:04:35 +0200 (CEST) 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 id 810BE2EE54 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 45BC346754 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:04:33 +0200 From: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <20210610120433.GA13807@gaia.proxmox.com> Mail-Followup-To: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20210527092601.148400-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20210527092601.148400-2-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <1623325310.d7m8o7zpwa.astroid@nora.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1623325310.d7m8o7zpwa.astroid@nora.none> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 2.021 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [base.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 container 1/2] setup: clear /etc/machine-id for newly created containers 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: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:04:36 -0000 hi, > +sub clear_machine_id { > > + my ($self, $conf, $clone) = @_; > > + > > + my $code = sub { > > + $self->{plugin}->clear_machine_id($self->{conf}, $clone); > > + }; > > + $self->protected_call($code); > > + > > +} > > maybe it would make more sense to call this "post_clone_hook", so it is > re-usable for other, similar changes (like optionally regenerating SSH > keys, or ...) in the future without polluting the entry-point namespace > too much? yes i was also thinking why we don't have a post_clone_hook :D i'll change that accordingly :) > > > + > > sub post_create_hook { > > my ($self, $root_password, $ssh_keys) = @_; > > > > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Base.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Base.pm > > index d73335b..21074b7 100644 > > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Base.pm > > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Base.pm > > @@ -476,6 +476,30 @@ sub set_timezone { > > } > > }