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 B656F632A1 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20211126150255.1819278-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 $secret ends in a newline. Otherwise we >> will have Input/output errors from rados_connect. >> > > Reviewed-by: Fabian Ebner > Tested-by: Fabian Ebner > >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer >> --- >>   PVE/CephConfig.pm | 1 + >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/PVE/CephConfig.pm b/PVE/CephConfig.pm >> index 5c94a04..ac28e76 100644 >> --- a/PVE/CephConfig.pm >> +++ b/PVE/CephConfig.pm >> @@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ sub ceph_create_keyfile { >>       eval { >>           if (defined($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