From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <g.goller@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 CCF139E5D5
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20231127105238.99947-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<20231127105238.99947-3-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<qzqvjhqcakjbfsh3hns57tqngesm3htjefwowb7afoxozxvl25@zmdhioinjdc6>
<2b073619-730b-4e39-affc-45cbc624ef7c@proxmox.com>
<v2gi5qza4mp5umdhlxvxczmqgjvfxj3iuigu7fmq65fmpgmpq5@qkwuiyiv7rex>
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <v2gi5qza4mp5umdhlxvxczmqgjvfxj3iuigu7fmq65fmpgmpq5@qkwuiyiv7rex>
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
<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: 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<Option<SecureBoot>> =
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...