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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 385A9652BF
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:02:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E4122E3F7
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:02:46 +0100 (CET)
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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 9221E2E3EB
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:02:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6266743C52
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:02:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <c95f9918-b33c-5c37-92b1-d183713c0d5e@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:02:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/97.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20220117104825.2409598-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20220117104825.2409598-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220117104825.2409598-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.061 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 -0.001 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [mod.rs]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox v4 3/4] proxmox-async: add
connect_to_udp helper
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:02:46 -0000
A overly "sensitive" review due to getting a new public method, which is
always more work to change.
On 17.01.22 11:48, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> so that we do not have to always check the target ipaddr family manually
nit: above is slightly to long for our commit message style guide
> index 9a6d8a6..2dd49d4 100644
> --- a/proxmox-async/src/io/mod.rs
> +++ b/proxmox-async/src/io/mod.rs
> @@ -2,3 +2,6 @@
>
> mod async_channel_writer;
> pub use async_channel_writer::AsyncChannelWriter;
> +
> +mod udp_connect;
nit: why not just udp? I mean, it's private so we can change any time without
breaking much, but feel still a bit to narrow/specialized - not really hard
feelings though.
> +pub use udp_connect::connect_to_udp;
> diff --git a/proxmox-async/src/io/udp_connect.rs b/proxmox-async/src/io/udp_connect.rs
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..878b150
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/proxmox-async/src/io/udp_connect.rs
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +use std::io;
> +use std::net::SocketAddr;
> +
> +use tokio::net::{ToSocketAddrs, UdpSocket};
> +
> +/// Helper to connect to UDP addresses without having to manually bind to the correct ip address
> +pub async fn connect_to_udp<A: ToSocketAddrs + std::fmt::Display>(
name is a bit weird, as one cannot connect to a UDP, maybe dropping the `to`,
i.e., `udp_connect`, would be already fine?
One alternative could be to make this module `pub mod udp` and name the helper
either just `connect` or `connect_to`, just throwing out the idea here, not
much preference.
> + addr: A,
> +) -> io::Result<UdpSocket> {
> + let socket = match tokio::net::lookup_host(&addr).await?.next() {> + Some(SocketAddr::V4(_)) => UdpSocket::bind("0.0.0.0:0").await?,
> + Some(SocketAddr::V6(_)) => UdpSocket::bind("[::]:0").await?,
> + None => proxmox_sys::io_bail!("could not resolve address family {}", addr),
would it have some merit to use {:?} to loose the Display trait bound?
Probably not to relevant though.