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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 701E8914A7 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:00:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5E80D1CF4B for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:59:46 +0200 (CEST) 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 ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:59:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E6864445D0 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:59:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:59:44 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Leo Nunner Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20220927095944.wsyvolsajbrajnhh@casey.proxmox.com> References: <20220926094507.46263-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com> <20220927084632.c5lz3xgtzkou5asi@casey.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.258 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH firewall] fix #4204: automatically update usages of group when it is renamed 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: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:00:16 -0000 On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:28:26AM +0200, Leo Nunner wrote: > > On 9/27/22 10:46, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 11:45:07AM +0200, Leo Nunner wrote: > > > + $cluster_conf->{groups}->{$param->{group}} = $cluster_conf->{groups}->{$param->{rename}}; > > > + $cluster_conf->{group_comments}->{$param->{group}} = $cluster_conf->{group_comments}->{$param->{rename}}; > > > + > > > + # Update comment if provided > > > $cluster_conf->{group_comments}->{$param->{group}} = $param->{comment} if defined($param->{comment}); > > > + > > At this point you'd need to also store the cluster fw config, because > > *reading* the configs isn't necessarily done with a lock on the cluster > > config, and you don't want to race against readers seeing the new group > > being referred to without actually having the it in the config. > > > > You'll still be racing against clients having read the cluster config > > while you're *here* and then reading their host config *after* you've > > updated it... > > Is there actually a way around this? Unless we use something like inotify, > there'll be no way for them to actually know about the new group if they've > read the cluster config before I updated it. Well, not yet, and we'd need to distinguish between the race and the group *actually* not existing. Currently it'll produce a warning in the log which we might consider to be "good enough". We *could* try to remember which groups were missing in the previous run and assume new missing groups are part of a race, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Though syncing up would be simple enough as we only need to lock/unlock the cluster fw config once.