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