From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 665C91FF13A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:41:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A2F54214E0; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:40:55 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" To: "Daniel Kral" , Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server v2 1/2] refactor checks for absolute path as drive X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260722095251.89606-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <20260722095251.89606-2-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784727628139 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.114 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: QEQ2W6WAAMLGKJYRKZRGD37WXSATTSNM X-Message-ID-Hash: QEQ2W6WAAMLGKJYRKZRGD37WXSATTSNM X-MailFrom: t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 2:45 PM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: [snip] > Hm, the !$volid check should be included in the check above as well as > drive_is_absolute_path() doesn't check this and shouldn't need to. > > Though if there's good reason that !$volid will never be true here, this > can be removed in a previous commit with a clear reasoning why. Good catch, was a thinking mistake on my part. Thought the `!volid` check was unnecessary because the regex cleanly handles it, although that misses the point. Will reintroduce it. [snip]