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 064826120E for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:26:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F3E1130BE5 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:26:19 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 7B6CF30BDC for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:26:19 +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 521564620B; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:26:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:26:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/97.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Stefan Sterz , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20220207124825.1116194-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <10c2b794-7815-30b8-9957-a89acdafcab1@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <10c2b794-7815-30b8-9957-a89acdafcab1@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.160 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 15:26:20 -0000 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) { ... } ?