From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAEFB1FF13B for ; Wed, 06 May 2026 16:00:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C4FCB227A3; Wed, 6 May 2026 16:00:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Shannon Sterz Subject: applied: [PATCH manager v2] cert helpers: make sure that any new certificate and key match Date: Wed, 6 May 2026 15:59:35 +0200 Message-ID: <177807597243.83065.12142006244451148601.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260506124832.246682-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> References: <20260506124832.246682-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778075876013 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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 Message-ID-Hash: GYDEOZM2L6RSBB2Z2DJTVOZ7CSPNSXNC X-Message-ID-Hash: GYDEOZM2L6RSBB2Z2DJTVOZ7CSPNSXNC X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 06 May 2026 14:48:32 +0200, Shannon Sterz wrote: > previously it was possible to upload and set a key and certificate > combination, that did not match each other. this lead to confusing > errors as pveproxy would seemingly start, but not actually serve any > http connections. in a cluster context this leads to "broken pipe" > errors when connecting to such a misconfigured node. since this is > rather confusing, verify that a key and certificate can actually be > used before setting them as the current certificates by loading them > into a TLS context. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] cert helpers: make sure that any new certificate and key match commit: 76660ff2e5eaebfe4e783f1a755c9e376c75d1e4