From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C1BC1FF2A1
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:20:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 404871EA76;
Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:20:30 +0200 (CEST)
References: <mailman.497.1721140885.331.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
<30768a19-ddc4-49dc-b22d-1b47e5cceea8@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <30768a19-ddc4-49dc-b22d-1b47e5cceea8@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:19:35 +0200
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <mailman.498.1721143229.331.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
From: MAbeeTT via pve-devel <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Precedence: list
Cc: MAbeeTT <mabeett@gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
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/>
Reply-To: MAbeeTT@gmail.com,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] cloudinit: RFC proposal for unwanted and unexpected
regeneration of instance-id
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4753093869589101313=="
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
--===============4753093869589101313==
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <mabeett@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Delivered-To: pve-devel@lists.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 CB8A7C0DDF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:20:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A3B2E1EA90
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:19:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:19:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1fb05b0be01so39602385ad.2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1721143188; x=1721747988; darn=lists.proxmox.com;
h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to
:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date
:message-id:reply-to;
bh=VhRmaLzsP1H+jO0Ba/lhYn5fmDht5wlfeS+hB9XhA4k=;
b=MTGuVK8ooTAAlzslpeWAMrEtqUwSrVPvicKu0crbkqFOSlh/TM80kM3Loz+lx2F2KK
XNHnyKHzDGjALXQrT7jV5zkq2uLWAPhrgir7XHAlW8KiBNE5VJCWfjUDwxfO5M7YUKUd
G2vwzrXPXBqwbG/Y1915I2+N2ikJF0BnpNkpOKM3dOyeGuEkUC7GM6dIoFkBnEe+LI4I
izV5ydlq680dKwOq+6aaOa50Lt+bakVxxkE5UXO5xYhLq/MfxUV41RRfwyHBLDswb/ok
AdqqwaKoByBBCZpmI+SNwdUVs8lWVPo/8C4iyAg5LWb2FXCfK7N8vbhBt7pbhhI9Mwlk
Oi4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721143188; x=1721747988;
h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to
:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=VhRmaLzsP1H+jO0Ba/lhYn5fmDht5wlfeS+hB9XhA4k=;
b=SHuVH88JphPfEumRxPKBxeqN/9O2+Hitu6URbfPtt5vKVtWAMJY1DQWIthNJ18NG37
Rgi2HG088bM2ZnHOmL45V7UFqU3csmeyR+pTmGzMem8UqsLIlpYiZCnQr56hfrU5X7Id
PdOTjSI7dbSPVj+/HgNG+8Dlwi2js2eYiFwRkcCzoYwLOYURqs1/f/CHqSuUd1D4SS6/
3yPGeWb9k7NecU8fVr7u4tK8Hkh5BqZxtZRpEggXoBZ2dKnXIjwMH8C8hEJD6GZnOT9P
SsEEtjtqyJbej3RpFGCE8T8G5dNQVxBPWRfW37ZzXmLWCvRO7ZOJT41gk52dGB6RL/5j
1GRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxBWVuvlNhh4SLMiX9PwIZRe65frvBZu2uI9gFCxm+zDAGtWbtE
JpMFBot4QPgcvC0vt856Gasntszoc+M+V9T6oBbiyWr2ay/MwEp5SFw7+B62V/jTcPNuJ0YmGyz
v14QLWa3CmA4bi+rQjUHI1ESt+2BtEUcdAp9IOA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGD9MZd8NEgT5DPVJ9kFtnf7FuUIPO6XNBSCnAboDcuxI+sYNUJHG0sBf1fPV5K5IWoXW771PNBrBBZFj3vMSU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:d81a:b0:1c0:e54b:5651 with SMTP id
adf61e73a8af0-1c3f122d8c5mr2809846637.24.1721143188174; Tue, 16 Jul 2024
08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.497.1721140885.331.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> <30768a19-ddc4-49dc-b22d-1b47e5cceea8@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <30768a19-ddc4-49dc-b22d-1b47e5cceea8@proxmox.com>
Reply-To: MAbeeTT@gmail.com
From: MAbeeTT <mabeett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:19:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKmboB+5hNmqbECax5cAeFcoKJqoBPJ6HATXL0OB1EowZ6H2sA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] cloudinit: RFC proposal for unwanted and unexpected
regeneration of instance-id
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain
DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain
DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy
FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust
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. [readthedocs.io]
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 4:49=E2=80=AFPM Mira Limbeck <m.limbeck@proxmox.com=
> wrote:
>
> Hi Matias,
>
> Thank you for providing this detailed description of the issue!
Hello Mira
thanks for your quick response!
>From my side I offer all my available energy in order to help.
> We have an open issue in our bug tracker [0]. If it's alright with you
> I'd add your text as-is to the bug tracker as a comment for additional
> information/reasoning on why that change would be needed.
Sure, feel free to edit in order to clarify.
Just one clarification:
Current cloud-init documentation from my first message determines[0] clearl=
y
> > Alternatively, the filesystem has been attached to a new instance, and=
this is the instance=E2=80=99s first boot.
> > The most obvious case where this happens is when an instance is launche=
d from an image captured from a launched instance.
> > By default, cloud-init attempts to determine which case it is running i=
n by checking the instance ID in the cache against the instance ID it deter=
mines at runtime.
> > If they do not match, then this is an instance=E2=80=99s first boot;
So It is not a matter of a particular Distro/OS version/release. It is
a =C2=ABa feature=C2=BB from upstream cloud-init implementation.
My corner case is just a bit different, let say "Do not update
instance-id without user new VM config [subset cinit-related]"
Anyway your work could be an answer for my scenario.
Let me know if this is clear enough.
>
> Feel free to add yourself to the CC list if you want to be notified on
> updates.
Done, thanks
>
> > I am far away from being a Perl developer, but I can put my best
> > effort during my spare time.
> > Anyway I would like to know what you think since what I am proposing
> > changes the current behaviour of PVE cloudinit, maybe these changes
> > could be part of PVE 9?
>
> I already started working on an implementation for a fixed instance-id.
> I can't give an ETA when the first draft will be sent to the pve-devel
> list though.
Great, ping me if you need feedback.
kind regards,
mts
[0] https://cloudinit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/explanation/boot.html#first-=
boot-determination
--
.::MAbeeTT::.
mabeett [at] gmail [ dot] com
--===============4753093869589101313==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
--===============4753093869589101313==--