Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 firewall 6/6] simulator: use new bridge naming scheme

[Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:36:59PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 26/02/2024 um 11:51 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel:
> > hi,I think you should limit to 8 characters like for sdn vnet, 
> > 
> > as we need to space to  vlan tag for example (vmbrY.XXXX), or other sdn
> > construct.
> 
> alternatively just show a hint in the UI if longer than 8 characters
> and, if possible, error out with a clear message when one sets up
> something that cannot work any more.
> [...]
> That said, starting out with a 8 characters max length limit is quicker
> to implement and would be fine for me.

When creating a VNet with this patch, the Web UI should validate that
the bridge name isn't longer than 10 characters, so it should be fine
since .XXXX is at most 5 characters - or am I missing something?

Should be no problem to switch from 10 to 8 though, if this is solely
for possible future additions that might require more than 5
characters.

Might be a bit awkward  if a user creates a bridge with >10 characters
and then notices he cannot use it as a bridge in SDN.

> btw. one could also lift the strict naming scheme for bonds using
> the 'bond-mode' flag to detect them.

Yes, definitely something I could introduce but we would need some
solution for the pve-firewall simulator, since it only goes off of
naming schemes rather than the interfaces file.

> Oh, and fwiw, having some awareness safety net like:
> 
> warn "..." if !defined $d->{'bridge_ports'} && $iface =~ m/^vmbr\d+$/;

Sounds good, you mean in the parsing of the interface file - I assume?