From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 0BA1A8D98B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:47:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D8D9619A4D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:46:47 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:46:47 +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 DE2754308A
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:46:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <15995f84-e3f5-fbdb-acb6-23fb24d5494a@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:46:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20220920125041.3636561-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20220920125041.3636561-9-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220920125041.3636561-9-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.033 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [daemon.pm, inotify.pm, ldap.pm, hardwaremap.pm, format.pm,
exception.pm, jsonschema.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common v3 2/3] add PVE/HardwareMap
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:47:18 -0000
high level comment: should this go into pve-guest-common instead?
Am 20/09/2022 um 14:50 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> this adds functionality for the hardwaremap config (as json)
> the format of the config is like this:
>
> {
> usb => {
> name => {
> nodename1 => { /* mapping object */ },
> nodename2 => { /* mapping object */ }
> }
> },
> pci => {
> /* same as above */
> },
> digest => "<DIGEST-STRING>"
> }
>
> a single mapping object contains some info about the device, e.g.
> for pci the (sub)vendor, sub(device), the mdev capability, path, etc.
>
> for pci multifunction devices (e.g. 01:02 instead of 01:02.0), we use
> the values of the first function to identify it.
>
> note that for multifunction devices, we require 'mdev' to be undef
> regardless what the first function is capable of, since
> we cannot use mediated devices with multifunction devices anyway.
>
> it also adds some helpers for the api schema & asserting that the
> device mappings are valid (by checking the saved properties
> against the ones found on the current available devices)
>
> we use a single cluster wide json here, because section config is too
"json file"
If it's json it should end with .json and I misread where you put it, please
don't pollute /etc/pve/nodes/ with some files, rather just use /etc/pve directly,
while that directory is a bit growing it's at least fitting the common file
location semantics for cluster-wide shared files.
I unpulled the cluster patch for registering the file for now.
> limited to properly represent the data we need and easily access the
> config of all nodes when we need it (e.g. in api calls regarding
> migration and configuration)
>
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> ---
> src/Makefile | 1 +
> src/PVE/HardwareMap.pm | 367 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 368 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 src/PVE/HardwareMap.pm
>
> diff --git a/src/Makefile b/src/Makefile
> index 13de6c6..8527704 100644
> --- a/src/Makefile
> +++ b/src/Makefile
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ LIB_SOURCES = \
> Daemon.pm \
> Exception.pm \
> Format.pm \
> + HardwareMap.pm \
> INotify.pm \
> JSONSchema.pm \
> LDAP.pm \
> diff --git a/src/PVE/HardwareMap.pm b/src/PVE/HardwareMap.pm
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..31841b4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/PVE/HardwareMap.pm
> @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
> +package PVE::HardwareMap;
> +
> +use strict;
> +use warnings;
> +
> +use Digest::SHA;
> +use JSON;
> +use Storable qw(dclone);
> +
> +use PVE::Cluster qw(cfs_register_file cfs_read_file cfs_write_file cfs_lock_file);
are you really introducing a cyclic dependency from pve-common <-> pve-cluster, yeah no
NAK! tbh. it would think that long term Proxmox engineers know that this is a no-go if
just anyhow possible