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 DFD0F970A7 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:41:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6DD7F7C6F for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:41:29 +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 ; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:41:28 +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 9E808467D0 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:41:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:41:25 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Leo Nunner Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20230127114125.bquh7kdugu2arvd2@fwblub> References: <20230126143020.150338-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com> <20230126143020.150338-5-l.nunner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20230126143020.150338-5-l.nunner@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 2.695 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -5 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, high trust 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 4/4] config: combine group/ipset and their comments 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, 27 Jan 2023 11:41:59 -0000 On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 03:30:19PM +0100, Leo Nunner wrote: > This patch restructures the parsed config structure a bit to be more > consistent across objects. > > group_comments and ipset_comments were removed from the config structure > and are now stored directly within the group/ipset objects themselves. > They now follow the same structure as aliases, with > > => { > comment => <...>, > [entries|rules] => { <...> }, > } > > We don't need to store separate instances of the original + the > lower-case name for aliases anymore, so the structure was changed to > > => { > comment => <...>, > cidr => <...>, > ipversion => <...>, > } > > Signed-off-by: Leo Nunner > --- > RFC: This one is optional, it's just that while experimenting with > the capitalization issue I also looked into using a "name" property > for everything (like for aliases), and while I was at it, I also transfered > the comments into the main object… I feel like this structure is nicer, but > we don't _need_ it. My main worry is that there might still be some calls to > $conf->{ipset}->{foo} instead of $conf->{ipset}->{foo}->{entries}, but I > couldn't find any aside from the ones modified in this patch ^^ But in the end you dropped the `name` property of aliases instead. Could you clarify your conclusion a bit? Because now we have hashes with original names and need to `grep` their keys instead of doing lookups because we don't know their capitalization, and need to remember doing so everywhere. To me this seems like a step backwards, given that the firewall is already quite CPU-hungry at times? It seems to me that all-lowercase hashes with original names inside would be much eaiser? Sure, we'd have to "undo" this when saving or returning stuff via the API for backward compatibility.