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 980A6B379B for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:08:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 81743276A for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:08:20 +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 ; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:08:19 +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 A483A42449 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:08:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:08:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 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> <6e10f6cf-2d76-44f4-80f7-355bf56d3dbe@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US 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 -0.189 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 - 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: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 09:08:20 -0000 Submitted a new version! On 11/29/23 09:58, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:02:18PM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> 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... > Sorry for the late reply. > IMO both are fine. After all, if we need to change away from a bool we > can just mark the function as #[deprecated] and move on from there with > compiler help. > I don't think we'd really lose any flexibility if in the end we turn it > into a boolean on the API facing side anyway, as a change there would be > an API break after all, while an internal change does not matter that > much.