From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 896341FF16B for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 566C93E975; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:06:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <6836b503-698d-42e5-8f29-a0502c0262a7@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:06:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , Gabriel Goller References: <20250709194526.560709-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20250709194526.560709-8-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <3973bc97-151c-4dfc-b2ab-f9e781f1056a@proxmox.com> <4495c12f-da09-4469-a507-de90cced1ba3@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: <4495c12f-da09-4469-a507-de90cced1ba3@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.674 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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] [PATCH pve-manager 1/1] cli: add pveeth X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 7/15/25 15:51, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 15.07.25 um 14:30 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: >>>> This I'd need to think through, just wanted to comment on above before >>>> I forget. >>> >>> If we really want to make pin and unpin involutive, we would need to >>> store somewhere the interface names or store the interface naming >>> policy. >> >> unpin was more intended as a solution for users that made an error with >> invoking the pin command and give them an easy way to revert the changes >> generated by pin. In the other thread with Dominik I've also discussed a >> different approach on how to handle applying the configuration. Solving >> it as follows would also introduce a way of reverting the configuration: >> >> * Pinning generates the new configuration files in the pending config of >> /e/n/i and SDN. For the firewall we'd have to create one as well and >> probably just handle this manually in the following step. >> * Add another command that applies the temporary changes which would >> also include applying the changes via udevadm immediately. >> >> If we solve it like this, then we could introduce a 'revert' or >> 'rollback' command, which would simply delete any pending changes and >> then remove the generated link files. We'd have three possible actions >> for handling pending configuration files: >> >> * generate (generates the pending configuration) >> * apply (which applies pending configuration) >> * revert/rollback (which removes any pending configuration changes) >> >> This would reset everything to the way it was before generating the >> pending configuration. It would also obsolete a dry-run flag imo, since >> we have the intermediate, pending, configuration that needs to be >> manually applied. Users can use those for inspecting the potential changes. >> >> It would still make sense to provide the opportunity for users to get >> rid of all pinned names, which unpin in its current state could then do. > That would be certainly nice to have for admins, but it would also > be nice if firewall stack can still transparently cope with the altnames. It can - with the patches included in this series. > btw. a reboot in the "pinned but not applied" state might need some > special handling to, because IIRC it would now apply the /e/n/i changes > but not the firewall rules. > We could add the handling for the node firewall rules in the apply /e/n/i > endpoint, as then it might work automagically? I can look into that, then this might be the best way forward, if I can move it there easily. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel