From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26A9F1FF15E for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:51:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 21C0620FAE; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:51:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:51:21 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20250915084801.48170-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <5711a326-c8e5-4f7d-a374-ea02f1fbb411@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5711a326-c8e5-4f7d-a374-ea02f1fbb411@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1757933475341 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH network] fix #6806: sdn: allow nic* and if* interfaces as bridge ports X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 15.09.2025 12:42, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >Am 15.09.25 um 10:48 schrieb Gabriel Goller: >> When creating a vlan zone and vnet, we get all the bridge interfaces >> (slaves) and add them to the new vlan bridge. We get all the bridge >> interfaces using `/sys/class/net` and then filter them using a regex. >> This regex was missing the new `if` and `nic` prefixes which were >> introduced with the pve-network-interface-pinning tool. >> >> This is more of a stop-gap, we can probably remove the regex completely >> as I don't see any reason to filter by "physical" interfaces here. If >> there is a need, we can still run `ip link` and check the attributes >> with `PVE::Network::ip_link_is_physical`. > >We allow bond already now though, so replacing the current check with the >ip_link_is_physical would not really be an option FWICT. Ah yeah true. >Reversing the regex to filter out stuff that quite definitively does not >make sense might be a better approach, like: > >^(?!((fw(br|pr|ln)|tap|veth)\d+((p|i)\d+)?)) > >But really not that much more maintainable ;-) So even if it should result >in the same list, it might be better to replace dir_glob_foreach with >"manually" doing the loop here and use dedicated simple "next if expression" >checks to skip the interfaces that cannot make sense. > >But your stop gap is already improving the status quo, so it's fine to >apply this patch here now already. Agree. I'll discuss with Stefan later (he's on vacation this week) if we can remove this altogether. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel