From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 A8928A053
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:16:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9845C26AC3
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:15:32 +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 1754626AB6
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:15:31 +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 DB08F42DFD;
Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:15:30 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <8713b0f2-b71e-f7eb-c651-8336f9c9e94d@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:15:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/100.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
"DERUMIER, Alexandre" <Alexandre.DERUMIER@groupe-cyllene.com>,
"f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20220427113600.166803-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<27858f5825dd14d370504c67bf877dc6d53a4bfc.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <27858f5825dd14d370504c67bf877dc6d53a4bfc.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.953 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
NICE_REPLY_A -1.857 Looks like a legit reply (A)
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 manager] api2: network: anybridge: re-add
regular bridges
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: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:16:02 -0000
On 27.04.22 14:32, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote:
> I didn' see, but Thomas have reworked it:
> https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-manager.git;a=commit;h=640c0b26891c408d0456c355b3724c1be18cc75f
>
> and the behaviour seem to be different:
argh, sorry, the can_access_vnet sub should also had an:
return 1 if !($have_sdn && $param->{type} eq 'any_bridge');
to make it equivalent with what you had before... :/