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 C07C81FF0E7 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 49DC62137E; Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:57:29 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v2 0/4] fix #7801: ui: warn about problematic virtio versions on iso select From: "Nicolas Frey" To: "Dominik Csapak" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260826074935.78437-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <81015da8-5e46-4adc-8c0e-73794bb6ea79@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <81015da8-5e46-4adc-8c0e-73794bb6ea79@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787813840745 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.341 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_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium 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: 2ELCY5XTN7ZCZX6CKMFYZAUET3FEROLQ X-Message-ID-Hash: 2ELCY5XTN7ZCZX6CKMFYZAUET3FEROLQ X-MailFrom: n.frey@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 Thu Aug 27, 2026 at 8:14 AM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: > high level question: could it make sense to have this > warning also on the backend, e.g. in the start task? > > that way a user only using the cli/api would also see it, not > only the ui users. > > if that makes sense, we might want to keep a list > of versions on the backend and expose it via the api > for the gui? I think both of these points make sense to implement, I can add it in the next revision > > on the backend we could even match the sha256 sum or something like > that (if that's not too much of a performance hit on start) to > check if it's really the right version > while I guess this is a better heuristic to check against instead of just relying on the filename, I think unless performing the sha256 sum once and caching it, it would be too much of an unnecessary performance hit. [snip]