From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.zeidler@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 558B39511C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3D39D35854
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:15:47 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:15:46 +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 7F09A44C5F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:15:46 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <54955321e5209dd5dc2222d7b27efc612ac89226.camel@proxmox.com>
From: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development
discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:15:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: <8e717554-e3d8-4c97-8728-e8e8dc4885f4@proxmox.com>
References: <20240322135933.164404-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
<20240322135933.164404-9-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
<8e717554-e3d8-4c97-8728-e8e8dc4885f4@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.098 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 manager 9/9] report: add microcode info to
better assess possible system impacts
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:15:47 -0000
On Mon, 2024-03-25 at 10:00 +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 14:59, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> > * list availability and installation status of `*microcode` packages
> > * grep for applied "Early OS Microcode Updates"
> > * grep for (un)patched CPU vulnerability messages
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > PVE/Report.pm | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/PVE/Report.pm b/PVE/Report.pm
> > index fe497b43..18c554ec 100644
> > --- a/PVE/Report.pm
> > +++ b/PVE/Report.pm
> > @@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ my $init_report_cmds =3D sub {
> > 'dmidecode -t bios -q',
> > 'dmidecode -t memory | grep -E "Capacity|Devices|Size|Manu|Part" | s=
ed -Ez "s/\n\t(M|P)[^:]*: (\S*)/\t\2/g" | sort',
> > 'lscpu',
> > + 'apt list *microcode 2>/dev/null | column -tL',
> > + 'dmesg | grep -i "microcode\|vuln"',
>=20
> I'm wondering if instead of having a handful of dmesg + grep instances
> it makes more sense to just add the whole dmesg output as separate
> file.
>=20
> I.e., I would like to have a cluster-wide report collection API that
> spawns a task, calls to all nodes to generate a report, saves all of
> those reports, including commands or files with very long output as
> separate files, and then assembles an archive with all that.
Great idea. The implementation of this seems not to be that trivial with
our current code base, so I plan to work on this in the near future.
And for a perhaps currently installed microcode package version, this
can be well included into the pveversion -v output. Whether it has been
applied at the current boot, will only later be visible in the dmesg file.
So this patch can be dropped.
>=20
> On the long run that would provide nicer UX and also avoid that some
> to strict filter hides information that might be relevant for a
> specific setup.
>=20
> I'd much more prefer work time spent on something like that than on
> adding the same command a few times with each having some different,
> rather a bit brittle looking, pipe chains..
>=20
> > 'lspci -nnk',
> > ],
> > },
>=20