From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B656F632A1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:42:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A74D02414F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:42:41 +0100 (CET)
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 72BC424118
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:42:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 42A174613D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:42:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <7daccc4b-fc72-c5eb-a6f4-9191ecacf14e@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:42:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20211126150255.1819278-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
 <dbbbad44-8e12-9860-6f36-5caa8e38662c@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <dbbbad44-8e12-9860-6f36-5caa8e38662c@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.001 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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. [cephconfig.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] CephConfig: ensure newline in
 $secret parameter
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, 24 Jan 2022 14:42:41 -0000



On 1/24/22 12:26, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> Am 26.11.21 um 16:02 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
>> Ensure that the user provided $secret ends in a newline. Otherwise we
>> will have Input/output errors from rados_connect.
>>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> Tested-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>   PVE/CephConfig.pm | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/CephConfig.pm b/PVE/CephConfig.pm
>> index 5c94a04..ac28e76 100644
>> --- a/PVE/CephConfig.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/CephConfig.pm
>> @@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ sub ceph_create_keyfile {
>>       eval {
>>           if (defined($secret)) {
>>           mkdir '/etc/pve/priv/ceph';
>> +        $secret = "${secret}\n" if $secret !~ m/\n$/;
>>           PVE::Tools::file_set_contents($ceph_storage_keyring, $secret, 0400);
>>           } elsif ($type eq 'rbd') {
>>           mkdir '/etc/pve/priv/ceph';
> 
> Just one thing I'm wondering: AFAIU there is no problem for CephFS currently, but for consistency/future-proving, we might put a newline there as well when the $secret is not user-provided. I.e. below, $cephfs_secret isn't newline-terminated:
> 
>              } elsif ($type eq 'cephfs') {
>                  my $cephfs_secret = $ceph_get_key->($ceph_admin_keyring, 'admin');
>                  mkdir '/etc/pve/priv/ceph';
>                  PVE::Tools::file_set_contents($ceph_storage_keyring, $cephfs_secret, 0400);
>             }

Good idea. I did some initial tests in a user provided (external) storage config and adding creating a CephFS in a hyperconverged setup and did not run into issues.
I will add that in the v2