From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.stechauner@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 758F170C76
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:45:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 649BC179F2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:45:12 +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 D28D0179E4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:45:11 +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 A141F466FE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:45:11 +0200 (CEST)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210625104837.913605-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
 <e3bfd605-947d-f341-3603-07e56c54c899@proxmox.com>
From: Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <ca657ce6-72f4-32a0-0ff8-81094d80ff67@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:45:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e3bfd605-947d-f341-3603-07e56c54c899@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.678 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
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [inotify.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] fix #3153: INotify: adding interface
 comment to inet6 section when this is the only section
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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:45:12 -0000


On 25.06.21 13:18, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 25.06.21 12:48, Lorenz Stechauner wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Stechauner <l.stechauner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>   src/PVE/INotify.pm | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/INotify.pm b/src/PVE/INotify.pm
>> index 562a243..ce1efd1 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/INotify.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/INotify.pm
>> @@ -1156,6 +1156,12 @@ sub __read_etc_network_interfaces {
>>   	$d->{method} = 'manual' if !$d->{method};
>>   	$d->{method6} = 'manual' if !$d->{method6};
>>   
>> +	if ($d->{comments6}) {
>> +	    $d->{comments} = '' if !defined($d->{comments});
>> +	    $d->{comments} .= $d->{comments6};
>> +	    $d->{comments6} = undef;
> rather than setting it to `undef`, in which case the hash element still exists, use
> `delete`, which also returns the value.
>
>
> So this could be:
>
> if (my $comments6 = delete $d->{comments6}) {
>      $d->{comments} = ($d->{comments}) // '') . $comments6;
> }
>
> Shorter and also more correct/robust.
>
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	$d->{families} ||= ['inet'];
>>       }
>>   
>> @@ -1242,7 +1248,7 @@ sub __interface_to_string {
>>       my $done = { type => 1, priority => 1, method => 1, active => 1, exists => 1,
>>   		 comments => 1, autostart => 1, options => 1,
>>   		 address => 1, netmask => 1, gateway => 1, broadcast => 1,
>> -		 method6 => 1, families => 1, options6 => 1,
>> +		 method6 => 1, families => 1, options6 => 1, comments6 => 1,
>>   		 address6 => 1, netmask6 => 1, gateway6 => 1, broadcast6 => 1, 'uplink-id' => 1 };
>>   
>>       if (!$first_block) {
>> @@ -1733,6 +1739,12 @@ NETWORKDOC
>>   	    }
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	# if 'inet6' is the only family or is at least a family in use
>> +	if ($d->{families}[0] eq 'inet6') {
> shouldn't that include a length check like `scalar($d->{families}->@*) == 0` to be more safe/robust,
> as else inet6 could be just be first by chance (did not really checked the context though)

the length check would not hurt - true. But it does not matter, in which 
section (inet/inet6) the comments gets put. The reader method unifies 
these comments anyway. So the comment *might* gets put in the inet6 
section, event if there is another inet section. Should not matter, 
should it?

Will add a "lenght" == 1 to the if.

>
>> +	    $d->{comments6} = $d->{comments};
>> +	    $d->{comments} = undef;
> see above regarding use of delete
>
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	my $i = 0; # some options should be printed only once
>>   	$raw .= __interface_to_string($iface, $d, $_, !$i++, $ifupdown2) foreach @{$d->{families}};
>>       }
>>