From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63E401FF15E for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:46:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C6E1816DA0; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:47:14 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:47:12 +0100 Message-Id: Cc: "pdm-devel" From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20251105163546.450094-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <20251105163546.450094-5-h.laimer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20251105163546.450094-5-h.laimer@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1762782409925 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.038 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 Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] [PATCH proxmox v2 4/4] pve-api-types: regenerate X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" On Wed Nov 5, 2025 at 5:35 PM CET, Hannes Laimer wrote: > CLUSTER_JOIN_INFO_PREFERRED_NODE_RE = r##"^(?i:[a-z0-9](?i:[a-z0-9\-]*[a-z0-9])?)$"##; > @@ -1645,6 +1740,204 @@ pub struct CreateZone { > pub zone: String, > } > > +#[api] > +/// Firewall IO policies. > +#[derive(Clone, Copy, Debug, Default, Eq, PartialEq, serde::Deserialize, serde::Serialize)] > +pub enum FirewallFWPolicy { > + #[serde(rename = "ACCEPT")] > + /// ACCEPT. > + Accept, > + #[serde(rename = "DROP")] > + #[default] If DROP is the default, then this differs from how PVE handles the case where policy_forward is not explicitly configured. At least pve-manager considers ACCEPT to be the default, even though the docs don't define a default (I think?). So if policy_forward is not explicitly configured (i.e. the cluster was just created), the PVE firewall options will display Forward Policy set to ACCEPT, whereas PDM will show DROP. > + /// DROP. > + Drop, > +} > +serde_plain::derive_display_from_serialize!(FirewallFWPolicy); > +serde_plain::derive_fromstr_from_deserialize!(FirewallFWPolicy); > + > +#[api] > +/// Firewall IO policies. > +#[derive(Clone, Copy, Debug, Default, Eq, PartialEq, serde::Deserialize, serde::Serialize)] > +pub enum FirewallIOPolicy { > + #[serde(rename = "ACCEPT")] > + #[default] Kind of the same problem as above. Input policy default is DROP, whereas Output policy default is ACCEPT (at least for pve-manager). PDM would display ACCEPT for both if the values are not explicitly configured. > + /// ACCEPT. > + Accept, > + #[serde(rename = "DROP")] > + /// DROP. > + Drop, > + #[serde(rename = "REJECT")] > + /// REJECT. > + Reject, > +} > +serde_plain::derive_display_from_serialize!(FirewallIOPolicy); > +serde_plain::derive_fromstr_from_deserialize!(FirewallIOPolicy); > + _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel