From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D98BC1FF133 for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 19:01:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7C226217F4; Mon, 11 May 2026 19:01:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <835cee6a-743c-4e48-aa18-4fc7c044e2da@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 19:01:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH cluster/manager/network/proxmox{,-ve-rs,-perl-rs} v4 00/31] Add WireGuard as protocol to SDN fabrics To: Arthur Bied-Charreton References: <20260507124008.417223-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.622 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 Message-ID-Hash: AIMQWNKCVWDRFX37EQIGDYPERBKK75TZ X-Message-ID-Hash: AIMQWNKCVWDRFX37EQIGDYPERBKK75TZ X-MailFrom: s.hanreich@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: thanks for the review! On 5/11/26 3:38 PM, Arthur Bied-Charreton wrote: [snip] > I did find some issues: > > 1. I deleted the external node from the WG fabric described above. > Applying the configuration update failed with: > > ``` > TASK ERROR: could not find node referenced in peer definition: qdevice > ``` > > The deletion does remove the `wireguard_node` entry from `fabrics.cfg`, > however the reference to it in the other nodes is not removed > > You mentioned this limitation in the cover letter, however it does > break the UI with an uncaught TypeError that causes the node edit > component to not render properly. This makes it impossible to remove > the dangling reference from the UI, I had to edit the config > manually (might have missed something though) > > Apart from that, deleting internal nodes works well, the private > keys are cleaned up as expected. added the validation for external nodes as well - good catch! > 2. I was able to set the interface IP of a WG node to an IP that is > already used by another node in the same WG fabric, which makes > them unable to talk to each other Hmmm, arguably this is only a problem if the interfaces are peers as well - which would make validation a lot more convoluted. But having the same IP twice on any interface is probably asking for potential trouble down the road... I'll check how exactly / restrictive I'll implement this. > 3. It looks like the WG config directory is never created. When setting > up WG for the first time, I got the following error: > > ``` > TASK ERROR: unable to open file '/etc/wireguard/proxmox/wg0.conf.tmp.22477' - No such file or directory > ``` > > Creating `/etc/wireguard/proxmox` fixes it. seems like the auto-creation code went missing when I refactored the key generation :/ - re-added it! > 4. Applying the config without `wireguard-tools` installed on one or > more node(s) still succeeds, it only logs that the `wg syncconf` > post-up command failed. Judging by the explicit warn statement > it looks like it's intentional but it took me a little bit to > figure out why my config was not working, might make sense to > promote this to an error log? made this a proper warning!