From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A87771FF0DF for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2026 10:02:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 85DBC21573; Fri, 11 Sep 2026 10:02:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: "Nicolas Frey" Subject: Re: [PATCH manager v2 0/4] fix #7801: ui: warn about problematic virtio versions on iso select In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Frey's message of "Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:57:29 +0200") References: <20260826074935.78437-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> <81015da8-5e46-4adc-8c0e-73794bb6ea79@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 10:02:04 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1789113714568 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.836 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: 2OKJIFV67D467MQUEHPANICEEUTGAYNV X-Message-ID-Hash: 2OKJIFV67D467MQUEHPANICEEUTGAYNV X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@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 CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: "Nicolas Frey" writes: > 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] >>From my experience in support, I do not remember seeing a case where the filename was not the same as the one from the downloads at https://fedorapeople.org. On the same topic, a big percentage of tickets have to devolve into asking customers to downgrade drivers because they have a version with issues. Multiple customers have genuine non-driver related issues, but we cannot start debugging those until they downgrade the drivers to 0.1.271 which takes a couple of rountrips/days. -- Maximiliano