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 CCF139E5D5 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:02:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A7D218700 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:02:21 +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 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:02:20 +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 D6F5944B44 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:02:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <6e10f6cf-2d76-44f4-80f7-355bf56d3dbe@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:02:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20231127105238.99947-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20231127105238.99947-3-g.goller@proxmox.com> <2b073619-730b-4e39-affc-45cbc624ef7c@proxmox.com> From: Gabriel Goller In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.198 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 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [uefi.org] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v4 proxmox-backup 2/3] node: status: added bootmode 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, 27 Nov 2023 14:02:51 -0000 On 11/27/23 14:53, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:28:14PM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> Thanks for the review! >> >> On 11/27/23 14:10, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote: >>>> + >>>> +#[api] >>>> +#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Default)] >>> And Clone + Copy >> Agree >>>> +#[serde(rename_all = "kebab-case")] >>>> +/// The possible BootModes >>>> +pub enum BootMode { >>>> + /// The BootMode is EFI/UEFI >>>> + Efi, >>>> + /// The BootMode is Legacy BIOS >>>> + #[default] >>> ^ do we *need* Default on this type? And why is Bios the default? >> Removed it. Was enabled on the `NodeStatus` struct and cascaded down, but >> afaik we can remove it >> on the `NodeStatus` struct as well and get rid of it. > IMO this is one of those options where we can't have a default, so if a > struct containing it needs to be Default, this value should be an > Option<> in there instead. Agree. But what do you think about the SecureBoot enum in the proxmox_sys crate? Currently I have this: #[derive(Clone, Copy)] pub enum SecureBoot {     /// SecureBoot is enabled     Enabled,     /// SecureBoot is disabled     Disabled, } impl SecureBoot {     pub fn query() -> SecureBoot {         lazy_static::lazy_static!(             static ref SECURE_BOOT: Mutex> = Mutex::new(None);         );         let mut last = SECURE_BOOT.lock().unwrap();         let value = last.or_else(|| {             // Check if SecureBoot is enabled             // Attention: this file is not seekable!             // Spec: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/03_Boot_Manager.html?highlight=8be4d#globally-defined-variables             let efivar = std::fs::File::open( "/sys/firmware/efi/efivars/SecureBoot-8be4df61-93ca-11d2-aa0d-00e098032b8c",             );             if let Ok(mut file) = efivar {                 let mut buf = [0; 5];                 let Ok(_) = file.read_exact(&mut buf) else {                         return Some(SecureBoot::Disabled);                     };                 if buf[4] == 1 {                     Some(SecureBoot::Enabled)                 } else {                     Some(SecureBoot::Disabled)                 }             } else {                 Some(SecureBoot::Disabled)             }         });         *last = value;         value.unwrap()     } } Although we could make the function return a bool (then we'd have a free-standing function again), which would be simpler... (+ we convert it in pbs to a bool anyway) One advantage of my approach is that we are more flexible, could add another option, rename them, etc...