From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 A2E76620F3 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:17:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8F04424C69 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:16:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 2738E24C5F for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:16:39 +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 E136A43F0C for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:16:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:16:32 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20201117175725.3634238-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <1774426658.212.1605677252807@webmail.proxmox.com> <645547754.213.1605678469368@webmail.proxmox.com> <6447caa6-7079-4515-af39-4322fdd8a69f@proxmox.com> <1605687788.575q13vngv.astroid@nora.none> <224810846.78.1606118110748@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <224810846.78.1606118110748@webmail.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1606119311.q8at0x0v55.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.025 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 0/7] add, persist and check key fingerprint X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:17:09 -0000 On November 23, 2020 8:55 am, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >> should we switch it altogether, or just truncate it on display? IMHO for= =20 >> Qemu I'd like to keep the full digest/fingerprint, since there a=20 >> skipped collision means corrupt backups, not running into the next=20 >> error and bailing out.. >=20 > Just noticed that is a different use case, where we need to be exact. To = be > 100% sure, we would even need to compare the key raw data. But yes, we wa= nt=20 > to avoid keeping the old key in memory). >=20 > But we already have code there to do it correctly, so why do you thing > an 8byte fingerprint affects that at all? >=20 > see proxmox-backup-qemu commit 5a82749a29821bae756bb8c25dc459a3c08301d1 > I did that change ;) I meant that we can switch that over to just use=20 the fingerprint() function in CryptConfig, but obviously not if that=20 returns some collision-prone, shortened version.. =