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 B1A679E766 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:58:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 93AFF131C1 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:58:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from lana.proxmox.com (unknown [94.136.29.99]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:58:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by lana.proxmox.com (Postfix, from userid 10043) id B43FA2C29AA; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:58:51 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Hanreich To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:58:51 +0100 Message-Id: <20231128085851.61788-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.417 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods RDNS_NONE 0.793 Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [element.zone] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] sdn: ipam: fix ipam grouping identical subnets in different vnets 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, 28 Nov 2023 08:58:52 -0000 When SDN is configured with the same subnet in two different VNets the IPAM tree would render them wrongly. Reported-By: Hannes Duerr Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich --- www/manager6/tree/DhcpTree.js | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/www/manager6/tree/DhcpTree.js b/www/manager6/tree/DhcpTree.js index d0b80803d..60029d3f4 100644 --- a/www/manager6/tree/DhcpTree.js +++ b/www/manager6/tree/DhcpTree.js @@ -60,7 +60,11 @@ Ext.define('PVE.sdn.DhcpTree', { zones[element.zone].children.push(vnet); } - if (!(element.subnet in subnets)) { + if (!(element.vnet in subnets)) { + subnets[element.vnet] = {}; + } + + if (!(element.subnet in subnets[element.vnet])) { let subnet = { name: element.subnet, zone: element.zone, @@ -71,13 +75,13 @@ Ext.define('PVE.sdn.DhcpTree', { children: [], }; - subnets[element.subnet] = subnet; + subnets[element.vnet][element.subnet] = subnet; vnets[element.vnet].children.push(subnet); } element.type = 'mapping'; element.iconCls = 'x-tree-icon-none'; - subnets[element.subnet].children.push(element); + subnets[element.vnet][element.subnet].children.push(element); }); me.getView().setRootNode(root); -- 2.39.2