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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10C88738B3 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:53:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0079822C37 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:53:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id EFC9522C2C for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:53:45 +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 B9F5742591 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:53:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3c95a4c6-0403-799f-fe39-c4ae241eb654@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:53:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20210413121640.3602975-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20210413121640.3602975-13-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210413121640.3602975-13-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.040 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 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 common 2/2] schema: add pve-bridge-id option/format/pair 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:53:47 -0000 On 13.04.21 14:16, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > for re-use in qemu-server/pve-container, which already have this option= > duplicated. the '-pair' is needed for remote migration, but can also be= > a nice addition to regular intra-cluster migration to lift the > restriction of having identically named bridges. >=20 looks OK, one naming issue inline > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler > --- > src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) >=20 > diff --git a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > index f2ddb50..bf30b33 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm > @@ -82,6 +82,12 @@ register_standard_option('pve-storage-id', { > type =3D> 'string', format =3D> 'pve-storage-id', > }); > =20 > +register_standard_option('pve-bridge-id', { > + description =3D> "Bridge to attach guest network devices to.", > + type =3D> 'string', format =3D> 'pve-bridge-id', > + format_description =3D> 'bridge', > +}); > + > register_standard_option('pve-config-digest', { > description =3D> 'Prevent changes if current configuration file ha= s different SHA1 digest. This can be used to prevent concurrent modificat= ions.', > type =3D> 'string', > @@ -193,6 +199,17 @@ sub parse_storage_id { > return parse_id($storeid, 'storage', $noerr); > } > =20 > +PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('pve-bridge-id', \&parse_bridge_id); > +sub parse_bridge_id { > + my ($id, $noerr) =3D @_; > + > + if ($id !~ m/^[-_.\w\d]+$/) { > + return undef if $noerr; > + die "invalid bridge ID '$id'\n"; > + } > + return $id; > +} > + > PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('acme-plugin-id', \&parse_acme_plugin= _id); > sub parse_acme_plugin_id { > my ($pluginid, $noerr) =3D @_; > @@ -293,6 +310,14 @@ sub verify_storagepair { > my ($storagepair, $noerr) =3D @_; > return $verify_idpair->($storagepair, $noerr, 'pve-storage-id'); > } > + > +# note: this only checks a single list entry > +# when using a bridgepair-list map, you need to pass the full paramete= r to > +# parse_idmap > +register_format('bridgepair', \&verify_bridgepair); pve-bridge-id vs. bridgepair seems slightly odd as syntax choice? Why not `bridge-pair` or even `pve-bridge-pair`? > +sub verify_bridgepair { > + my ($bridgepair, $noerr) =3D @_; > + return $verify_idpair->($bridgepair, $noerr, 'pve-bridge-id'); > } > =20 > register_format('mac-addr', \&pve_verify_mac_addr); >=20