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 74F21C16C0 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:41:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 57EB134FD4 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:40:42 +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>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:40:41 +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 8091D49143 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:40:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:40:40 +0100 (CET) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Hannes_D=C3=BCrr?= <h.duerr@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <448717124.3893.1705401640824@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <9114e124-bda6-4e1a-903d-3c54d59a5373@proxmox.com> References: <20240111105123.370028-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <2ccd9b6e-0fc6-4d6e-9c7a-d6d29d9fa4f3@proxmox.com> <9114e124-bda6-4e1a-903d-3c54d59a5373@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 cluster/manager/storage/docs 0/9] fix #4886: improve SSH handling 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: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:41:12 -0000 > Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> hat am 16.01.2024 11:34 CET ge= schrieben: >=20 > =20 > Am 15/01/2024 um 16:53 schrieb Hannes D=C3=BCrr: > > Tested cluster creation with three new nodes on 8.1 and the patches > > Cluster creation and further ssh communication (eq. migration) worked= =20 > > flawless > >=20 > > Tested-by: Hannes Duerr <h.duerr@proxmox.com> >=20 > What about the reinstallation of an existing node, or replacing > one, while keeping the same nodename scenario? on (re)join, pvecm updatecerts is called, and the (new) host key is written= to the node directory (and picked up by the other nodes) from there. > As that was one of the main original reasons for this change here > in the first place. >=20 > For the removal you could play through the documented procedure > and send a patch for update it accordingly, as e.g., the part > about the node=E2=80=99s SSH keys remaining in the pmxcfs authorized_key > file would need some change to reflect that this is not true > for newer setups (once this series is applied and the respective > packages got bumped and released). authorized_keys are not touched by this series at all, see the cover letter= ;) this is purely known_hosts so far..