From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.schauer@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 1408C963A7
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:19:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EA1AFA8A2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:19:10 +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>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:19:10 +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 1DA80448AB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:19:10 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <7c82c50e-36de-429e-b32b-e7306e3c738e@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:18:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240129142911.120475-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
<a90c9302-4aa0-40a1-8a22-6de34bd34351@proxmox.com>
From: Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <a90c9302-4aa0-40a1-8a22-6de34bd34351@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.075 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 container] Fix invalid device passthrough
being added to config
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, 15 Apr 2024 13:19:41 -0000
On 11/04/2024 14:18, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> -
>> my $absolute_path = $device->{path};
>> my ($mode, $rdev) = (stat($absolute_path))[2, 6];
>>
>> - die "Device $absolute_path does not exist\n" if $! == ENOENT;
>> -
>> die "Error accessing device $absolute_path\n"
>> if (!defined($mode) || !defined($rdev));
>>
>> - die "$absolute_path is not a device\n"
>> - if (!S_ISBLK($mode) && !S_ISCHR($mode));
>> -
> Is there any downside to keeping these checks here as well? What a path
> points to might change in between being set in the config and some later
> time when the container is started, so these checks still make sense
> here IMHO. Could then become a helper function since it's used in two
> places, which would also reduce the amount of lines in the
> update_{pct,lxc}_config functions.
Good point, I sent a patch v2:
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-April/062973.html