From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01C9C1FF0E3 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2026 10:00:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B698021A0F; Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:56:38 +0100 (CET) From: Hannes Laimer To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [PATCH pve-manager v3 31/45] network: apply the microseg policy on reload Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20261027085527.702738-32-h.laimer@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20261027085527.702738-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> References: <20261027085527.702738-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793091367173 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.356 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: NBQDKR4ZJSVQYEPYYYPNEXZYA6XYJZOW X-Message-ID-Hash: NBQDKR4ZJSVQYEPYYYPNEXZYA6XYJZOW X-MailFrom: h.laimer@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: A network reload is the per-node step of an SDN apply, so the reload applies the microseg policy of the running config after ifreload. A failed ifreload or FRR step does not skip the apply, since a node with one broken interface stanza would otherwise stay on its old policy. A policy that cannot be applied fails the reload task. Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer --- PVE/API2/Network.pm | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/PVE/API2/Network.pm b/PVE/API2/Network.pm index cc8aa8cacb19..316ef1a70a02 100644 --- a/PVE/API2/Network.pm +++ b/PVE/API2/Network.pm @@ -933,18 +933,27 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ print "$2 : $line \n"; } }; - PVE::Tools::run_command(['ifreload', '-a'], errfunc => $err); - - if (defined($regenerate_frr)) { - # SDN (or a manual invocation) is requesting a - # specific behavior, so we abide by the parameter set. - PVE::Network::SDN::generate_frr_config(1) if $regenerate_frr; - } elsif (PVE::Network::SDN::running_config_has_frr()) { - # Reload is coming from the Web UI (or a manual - # invocation requesting no specific behavior), so we - # reload if there are FRR entities in the SDN config. - PVE::Network::SDN::generate_frr_config(1); + eval { + PVE::Tools::run_command(['ifreload', '-a'], errfunc => $err); + + if (defined($regenerate_frr)) { + # SDN (or a manual invocation) is requesting a + # specific behavior, so we abide by the parameter set. + PVE::Network::SDN::generate_frr_config(1) if $regenerate_frr; + } elsif (PVE::Network::SDN::running_config_has_frr()) { + # Reload is coming from the Web UI (or a manual + # invocation requesting no specific behavior), so we + # reload if there are FRR entities in the SDN config. + PVE::Network::SDN::generate_frr_config(1); + } + }; + my $errors = $@; + + if ($have_sdn) { + eval { PVE::Network::SDN::Microseg::apply_all() }; + $errors .= $@; } + die $errors if $errors; }; return $rpcenv->fork_worker('srvreload', 'networking', $authuser, $worker); }, -- 2.47.3