From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@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 6ECDB94427
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:42:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4EAB51B0D0
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:42:40 +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, 11 Jan 2023 09:42:39 +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 6BD9B440BD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:42:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:42:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <1795541389.4375.1673426558540@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1254893564.4367.1673426193964@webmail.proxmox.com>
References: <20230109150706.446377-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20230109150706.446377-3-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20230110123621.itumnpojjfjolfq3@fwblub>
<1254893564.4367.1673426193964@webmail.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev32
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.212 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
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. [tools.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 1/1] tools: Add callback based
filtering for firewall logfiles
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, 11 Jan 2023 08:42:40 -0000
> On 01/11/2023 9:36 AM CET Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for the detailed review Wolfgang, I am still unsure about one of your comments, see below. Maybe you could clarify.
>
> Thx.
>
> > On 10.01.2023 13:36 CET Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 04:07:06PM +0100, Christian Ebner wrote:
> > > This patch introduces callback based filtering functionality for firewall logs.
> > > In addition, the contents of rotated logfiles are included by setting the
> > > `include_rotated_logs` flag.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
> > > ---
> > > src/PVE/Tools.pm | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/PVE/Tools.pm b/src/PVE/Tools.pm
> > > index cdbee6d..cafc2f7 100644
> > > --- a/src/PVE/Tools.pm
> > > +++ b/src/PVE/Tools.pm
> > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ use IO::Handle;
> > > use IO::Pipe;
> > > use IO::Select;
> > > use IO::Socket::IP;
> > > +use IO::Zlib;
> > > use IPC::Open3;
> > > use JSON;
> > > use POSIX qw(EINTR EEXIST EOPNOTSUPP);
> > > @@ -1265,29 +1266,19 @@ sub split_args {
> > > return $str ? [ Text::ParseWords::shellwords($str) ] : [];
> > > }
> > >
> > > -sub dump_logfile {
> > > - my ($filename, $start, $limit, $filter) = @_;
> > > -
> > > - my $lines = [];
> > > - my $count = 0;
> > > -
> > > - my $fh = IO::File->new($filename, "r");
> > > - if (!$fh) {
> > > - $count++;
> > > - push @$lines, { n => $count, t => "unable to open file - $!"};
> > > - return ($count, $lines);
> > > - }
> > > +sub dump_logfile_by_filehandle {
> > > + my ($fh, $start, $limit, $filter, $count, $lines, $read_until_end) = @_;
> >
> > ^ I think it'll be easier if we move start, limit, count and lines into
> > a `$state` hash, and keep $read_until_end internal here.
> > This way we don't need to pass them back and forth via paramters &
> > return values.
> >
> > We can pull them out as needed here and also do the defaults, eg.
> >
> > my $limit = ($state->{limit} //= 50);
> > my $count = ($state->{count} //= 0);
> > my $lines = ($state->{lines} //= []);
> > my $read_until_end = $limit == 0;
> >
> I don't see why $start should only be set to a value != 0 (if given anyway) for the first file.
>
> The line/count the output should start from might be located in any file. So
> my $start = ($state->{start} //= 0);
> would make more sense to me, or am I missing something?
Yeah sorry I somehow missed the interaction with $count...