From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20BE21FF0E1 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2026 09:34:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 835462134B; Mon, 27 Jul 2026 09:34:30 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 09:33:56 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: superseded: [PATCH proxmox-acme 1/1] fix #7749: always serialize in same order From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" To: "Elias Huhsovitz" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260714090458.87511-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <20260714090458.87511-2-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1785137602174 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.107 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: 5T56U3Z7IPPEIVWQFJPWIAS7EZJXGIBA X-Message-ID-Hash: 5T56U3Z7IPPEIVWQFJPWIAS7EZJXGIBA 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development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your review ;) Superseded-by: https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20260727072958.37999-1-t.= ellmenreich@proxmox.com/T/#u On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 5:39 PM CEST, Elias Huhsovitz wrote: > Small nit below, otherwise > > Reviewed-by: Elias Huhsovitz > [snip] > > To guarantee utf8=3D1, canonical=3D1. Theoretically %data could contain t= he > keys (utf8=3D0, canonical=3D0) overriding your manually set values, due t= o > perls hash expansion. Re-ordering should guarantee consistency. I decided to set the new setting manually to make the code more readable. Otherwise, it would not be clear that this edge case is being addressed by = the code. [snip]