From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.sterz@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 7B29A61221
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Feb 2022 16:30:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6AA4930C81
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Feb 2022 16:30:09 +0100 (CET)
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 E664E30C78
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Feb 2022 16:30:08 +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 B81AC46209
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Feb 2022 16:30:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <23c29e64-bc74-9a8f-7b70-bad0abdb633a@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:30:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20220207124825.1116194-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
 <a6a5daee-5e44-3fa1-f832-1903bce75f59@proxmox.com>
 <10c2b794-7815-30b8-9957-a89acdafcab1@proxmox.com>
 <b4a5d538-72e9-2f79-8632-db6e332b217b@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <b4a5d538-72e9-2f79-8632-db6e332b217b@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.000 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/2] fix #3853: api: add
 force option to tape key change-passphrase
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 15:30:39 -0000

On 2/8/22 16:26, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 2/7/22 17:14, Stefan Sterz wrote:
>> On 2/7/22 16:57, Stefan Sterz wrote:
>>> On 2/7/22 15:58, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>>> On 07.02.22 13:48, Stefan Sterz wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>> +    // sanity checks for "password xor --force"
>>>>> +    if force && password.is_some() {
>>>>> +        bail!("password is not allowed when using force")
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if !force && password.is_none() {
>>>>> +        bail!("missing parameter: password")
>>>>> +    }
>>>> Above two if's could be written slightly shorter while IMO even 
>>>> improving readability
>>>>
>>>> match (force, password) {
>>>>      (true, Some(_)) => bail!("password is not allowed when using 
>>>> force"),
>>>>      (false, None) => bail!("missing parameter: password"),
>>>>      _ => (), // OK
>>>> }
>>> This does not work, because here password is moved into the match 
>>> expression. The borrow checker will complain about it being used 
>>> later on when trying to decrypt the key configuration. You could 
>>> clone password here, but this solution strikes me as rather 
>>> "inelegant".
>
> did not look at the rest of the patch really, but i think thats wrong..
>
> couldn't you simply use the reference instead? then the value
> will not be moved?
>
> match (force, &password) {
> ...
> }
>
>
> ?
Yes sorry, using a reference works too. The value is moved when the
tuple is constructed is what I meant. This can be avoided by cloning
it or as you mentioned using a reference.