From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C00E1FF16F for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:02:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 25ACB25E3; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:02:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <20c54275-0148-4eea-b83f-63b7741ad4db@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:02:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Mira Limbeck <m.limbeck@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Daniel Herzig <d.herzig@proxmox.com> References: <20250210120722.163622-1-d.herzig@proxmox.com> <20250210120722.163622-3-d.herzig@proxmox.com> <1126663e-7d43-4c6e-82e1-1fc7918fc67a@proxmox.com> <080f00b4-2530-4369-9e9a-3d7e44c1cbed@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <080f00b4-2530-4369-9e9a-3d7e44c1cbed@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.046 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 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 2/8 container] cloudinit: basic implementation X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 13.02.25 um 12:29 schrieb Mira Limbeck: > On 2/13/25 12:01, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 10.02.25 um 13:07 schrieb Daniel Herzig: >>> +sub gen_cloudinit_metadata { >>> + my ($user) = @_; >>> + >>> + my $uuid_str = Digest::SHA::sha1_hex($user); >> >> Hmm, shouldn't this also depend on the vendor data? Otherwise, if only >> the vendor data changes, then it will still have the same instance ID. >> >> Seems like for VMs, we only use user and network data here. >> >> @Mira do you know more by chance? > I don't think vendor-data should be part of the instance-id. It's used > to create a first configuration that a user can override via the user > config. > The vendor-data won't be used again once it's already configured. > I'm not a 100% sure, but changing the instance-id leads to rerunning > lots of modules (e.g. User, Network and others), but the vendor-data > parts do not. > > Only a complete `cloud-init clean` should trigger the modules using > vendor-data to run again. > > > https://cloudinit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/explanation/vendordata.html#vendor-data Oh, thank you for the explanation! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel