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 494A664DCF for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:09:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 38B1D500F for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:09:14 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 7B5335005 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:09:13 +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 3A5DD46ED1 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:09:13 +0100 (CET) From: Fabian Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:09:08 +0100 Message-Id: <20220304130908.61564-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.127 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] api: ceph: mon: make checking for duplicate addresses more robust 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: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 13:09:44 -0000 Because $mon->{addr} might come with a port attached (affects monitors created with PVE 5.4 as reported in the community forum [0]), or even be a hostname (according to the code in Ceph/Services.pm). Although the latter shouldn't happen for configurations created by PVE. [0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/105904/ Fixes: 86ed64f9 ("api: ceph: mon: fix handling of IPv6 addresses in assert_mon_prerequisites") Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner --- PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm b/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm index 12c9caf0..5771bb46 100644 --- a/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm +++ b/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm @@ -132,8 +132,10 @@ my $assert_mon_prerequisites = sub { for my $mon (values %{$monhash}) { next if !defined($mon->{addr}); - my $ip = PVE::Network::canonical_ip($mon->{addr}); - $used_ips->{$ip} = 1; + for my $ip ($ips_from_mon_host->($mon->{addr})->@*) { + $ip = PVE::Network::canonical_ip($ip); + $used_ips->{$ip} = 1; + } } for my $monip (@{$monips}) { -- 2.30.2