From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 981869F4E8
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 18:03:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 79B9725A21
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 18:03:36 +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>; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 18:03:35 +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 2379A426CD;
 Thu,  8 Jun 2023 18:03:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <9f4def0e-9a3e-04f0-d08d-97b2317a8438@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 18:02:58 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <20230607120357.4177891-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
 <20230607120357.4177891-3-aderumier@odiso.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230607120357.4177891-3-aderumier@odiso.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.082 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: Re: [PATCH v4 qemu-server 1/1] api2: add
 check_bridge_access for create/update/clone/restore vm
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: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 16:03:36 -0000

On 07/06/2023 14:03, Alexandre Derumier wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>
> ---
>  PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, with Fabians R-b, thanks.

Made a follow-up moving the checker method to QemuServer and replacing getting
the config fromthe archive twice by checking after the config from the backup
and the override pa<rameters passed on restore got merged into the actual target
config, so this wasn't only a inefficiency thing IIUC, but actually wrong, i.e.,
if one passed a override for a netX property the one from the backup got checked,
not the effective one.