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 E992A957BD for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:35:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D224C1CA01 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:35:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from lana.proxmox.com (unknown [94.136.29.99]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:35:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by lana.proxmox.com (Postfix, from userid 10043) id 35ADB2C1546; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:35:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:35:46 +0100 From: Stefan Hanreich To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion , "DERUMIER, Alexandre" Message-ID: <20240227123546.gdreuvrwprhrqda7@lana.proxmox.com> References: <20240223143651.418065-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20240223143651.418065-7-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <44dc4d0b-6607-41cd-81f4-f45beac212a0@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <44dc4d0b-6607-41cd-81f4-f45beac212a0@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.359 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 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 firewall 6/6] simulator: use new bridge naming scheme 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 Feb 2024 12:35:47 -0000 On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:36:59PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 26/02/2024 um 11:51 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel: > > hi,I think you should limit to 8 characters like for sdn vnet,  > > > > as we need to space to  vlan tag for example (vmbrY.XXXX), or other sdn > > construct. > > alternatively just show a hint in the UI if longer than 8 characters > and, if possible, error out with a clear message when one sets up > something that cannot work any more. > [...] > That said, starting out with a 8 characters max length limit is quicker > to implement and would be fine for me. When creating a VNet with this patch, the Web UI should validate that the bridge name isn't longer than 10 characters, so it should be fine since .XXXX is at most 5 characters - or am I missing something? Should be no problem to switch from 10 to 8 though, if this is solely for possible future additions that might require more than 5 characters. Might be a bit awkward if a user creates a bridge with >10 characters and then notices he cannot use it as a bridge in SDN. > btw. one could also lift the strict naming scheme for bonds using > the 'bond-mode' flag to detect them. Yes, definitely something I could introduce but we would need some solution for the pve-firewall simulator, since it only goes off of naming schemes rather than the interfaces file. > Oh, and fwiw, having some awareness safety net like: > > warn "..." if !defined $d->{'bridge_ports'} && $iface =~ m/^vmbr\d+$/; Sounds good, you mean in the parsing of the interface file - I assume?