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 7A48590B98 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:42:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 58A751A0AF for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:41:30 +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 ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:41:29 +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 9C7E0478DD for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:41:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:41:23 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240130184041.1125674-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20240130184041.1125674-6-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <1706704585.2yd7g33cz4.astroid@yuna.none> <7f34dbe6-c2c0-4604-b7ac-4590e227a025@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <7f34dbe6-c2c0-4604-b7ac-4590e227a025@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1707745004.o1m2cw3anz.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.064 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager 5/8] fix #4759: ceph: configure keyring for ceph-crash.service X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:42:00 -0000 On February 5, 2024 12:57 pm, Max Carrara wrote: > On 1/31/24 14:17, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >> we have another helper for creating a keyring (and another inline call >> to ceph-authtool when creating a monitor), should we unify them? >=20 > In this case it's better not to, in my opinion - the function for `ceph-c= rash` > specifically uses `ceph auth get-or-create` as that's quite a bit easier = to use > in this scenario, as the key will automatically be generated if it doesn'= t exist. > This does require a connection to RADOS, but that will exist once the fir= st mon is > set up anyway. >=20 > Otherwise we'd have to use `ceph-authtool` and then also import the key t= o cephx > if it doesn't exist already, like we do in other places. >=20 > Ultimately it ends up achieving the same, but the former just seemed more > straightforward IMO. >=20 > I did however notice that there are several `run_command` calls to `ceph-= authtool` > floating around that could maaaybe benefit from a helper function, but I = would > rather implement that in a different patch series, as that's not really r= elevant > for this one. saw this too late, disregard that comment in my review of v2 ;) it might still make sense to have a common helper - after all, we could also create the mon keys via `ceph auth get-or-create` after the first one..