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 50A6C68D12 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:21:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 43C81B678 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:21:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 30A40B668 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:21:00 +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 F173B46209 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:20:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:20:59 +0100 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Oguz Bektas Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <20210210172059.6b59bc06@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210210160142.1326921-3-o.bektas@proxmox.com> References: <20210210160142.1326921-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20210210160142.1326921-3-o.bektas@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.064 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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. [pveproxy.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC 2/2 manager] proxy: allow setting BIND_IP for pveproxy 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: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:21:01 -0000 Thanks for looking into this! On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:01:42 +0100 Oguz Bektas wrote: > default to 0.0.0.0 to preserve backwards behavior > > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > --- > PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm b/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm > index 571a6bf5..ce1d42a6 100755 > --- a/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm > +++ b/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm > @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ sub init { > die "unable to open lock file '${accept_lock_fn}' - $!\n"; > > my $family = PVE::Tools::get_host_address_family($self->{nodename}); > - my $socket = $self->create_reusable_socket(8006, undef, $family); > + my $bind_ip = $proxyconf->{BIND_IP} // '0.0.0.0'; # default any reason why the '0.0.0.0' is necessary? (the socket got created with undef before after all) - Given that I find the inner workings of perl IO::Socket::IP (which gets passed the arguments in create_reusable_socket eventually) a bit surprising in certain situations I think leaving it as it was might have its merit did you test it in a few different scenarios? - e.g.: * ipv6 only host * dual-stacked host * host with multiple interfaces and IPs > + my $socket = $self->create_reusable_socket(8006, $bind_ip, $family); > > my $dirs = {}; >