From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 C6DFA76286
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:46:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B5EC11E0F2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:46:14 +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 id 084321E0E4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:46:14 +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 CD9BA4687A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:46:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <36a9bbe8-8948-0f7a-478f-33f76bd88a8a@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:46:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:94.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/94.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
References: <20211014092849.2397997-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211014092849.2397997-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.202 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 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: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH qemu-server 1/2] snapshot: fix tpmstate
 with rbd
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:46:44 -0000

On 14.10.21 11:28, Stefan Reiter wrote:
> QEMU doesn't know about the tpmstate, so 'do_snapshots_with_qemu' should
> never return true in that case. Note that inconsistencies related to
> snapshot timing do not matter much, as the actual TPM data is exported
> together with other device state by QEMU anyway.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> As reported in the forum: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/vtpm-support-do-we-have-guide-to-add-the-vtpm-support.56982/post-423381
> 
>  PVE/QemuServer.pm | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks! But, ...

> return if $deviceid =~ m/tpmstate0/;

... isn't there a better word boundary we could check for in the match to avoid
(rare but as you used a match vs. equal probably not impossible) false positives?