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 5062AEA0D for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:41:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 26E9E751A for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:41:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:41:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6CBE6409FD for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:41:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2e73269c-dc99-f193-ac82-9c401c560b44@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:41:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Lukas Wagner References: <20230717150051.710464-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20230717150051.710464-39-l.wagner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20230717150051.710464-39-l.wagner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.250 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_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years NICE_REPLY_A -0.089 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches 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. [jsonschema.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 pve-common 38/66] JSONSchema: increase maxLength of config-digest to 64 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: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 12:41:53 -0000 Am 17.07.23 um 17:00 schrieb Lukas Wagner: > The new notification backend is implemented in Rust where we use SHA256 > for config digests. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner > --- > src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > index 7589bba..49e0d7a 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > @@ -93,10 +93,13 @@ register_standard_option('pve-bridge-id', { > }); > > register_standard_option('pve-config-digest', { > - description => 'Prevent changes if current configuration file has different SHA1 digest. This can be used to prevent concurrent modifications.', > + description => 'Prevent changes if current configuration file has a different digest. ' > + . 'This can be used to prevent concurrent modifications.', Should we instead create a separate standard option "pve-config-digest-sha256"? Then we can still clearly communicate which digest it is to users of the API (mostly ourselves for this one, but still). Might prevent some mix-up at some point in the future. > type => 'string', > optional => 1, > - maxLength => 40, # sha1 hex digest length is 40 > + # sha1 hex digests are 40 characters long > + # sha256 hex digests are 64 characters long (sha256 is used in our Rust code) > + maxLength => 64, > }); > > register_standard_option('skiplock', {