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 1408C963A7 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240129142911.120475-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> From: Filip Schauer In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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