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 7D258B968F for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:34:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 589819C5C for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:34:23 +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 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:34:19 +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 AAD1C489D3 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:34:19 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:34:18 +0100 Message-Id: To: "Fiona Ebner" , "Proxmox VE development discussion" , "Stefan Sterz" From: "Max Carrara" X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-72-g6a84f1331f1c References: <20240313145345.484627-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <3877e8ba-5aec-46fa-922a-458a08243203@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <3877e8ba-5aec-46fa-922a-458a08243203@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.498 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 - URIBL_BLACK 3 Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist [mon.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager 1/2] fix #5198: ceph: mon: fix mon existence check in mon removal assertion 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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:34:53 -0000 On Thu Mar 14, 2024 at 8:56 AM CET, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 13.03.24 um 16:42 schrieb Stefan Sterz: > > On Wed Mar 13, 2024 at 3:53 PM CET, Max Carrara wrote: > >> The Ceph monitor removal assertion contains a condition that checks > >> whether the given mon ID actually exists and thus may be removed. > >> > >> The first part of the condition checks whether the hash returned by > >> `get_services_info` [0] contains the key "mon.$monid". However, the > >> hash's keys are never prefixed with "mon.", which makes this check > >> incorrect. > >> > >> This is fixed by just using "$monid" directly. > >> > >> The second part checks whether the mon hashes returned by > >> Ceph contain the "name" key before comparing the key with the given > >> mon ID. This key existence check is also incorrect; in particular: > >> * If the lookup `$_->{name}` evaluates to e.g. "foo", the check > >> passes, because "foo" is truthy. [1] > >> * If the lookup `$_->{name}` evaluates to "0", the check fails, > >> because "0" is falsy (due to it being equivalent to the number 0, > >> according to Perl [1]). > >> > >> This is solved by using the inbuilt `exists()` instead of relying on > >> Perl's definition of truthiness. > >> > > Technically, it's two changes, so could be two patches, but can be fine > like this too, since both touch the same check. > > >> [0]: https://git.proxmox.com/?p=3Dpve-manager.git;a=3Dblob;f=3DPVE/Cep= h/Services.pm;h=3De0f31e8eb6bc9b3777b3d0d548497276efaa5c41;hb=3DHEAD#l112 > >> [1]: https://perldoc.perl.org/perldata#Scalar-values > >> > >> Fixes: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D5198 > >> Signed-off-by: Max Carrara > >> --- > >> PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm b/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm > >> index 1e959ef3..1737c294 100644 > >> --- a/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm > >> +++ b/PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm > >> @@ -147,8 +147,8 @@ my $assert_mon_prerequisites =3D sub { > >> my $assert_mon_can_remove =3D sub { > >> my ($monhash, $monlist, $monid, $mondir) =3D @_; > >> > >> - if (!(defined($monhash->{"mon.$monid"}) || > >> - grep { $_->{name} && $_->{name} eq $monid } @$monlist)) > >=20 > > not sure if splitting the fix and the code style clean up makes sense > > here but otherwise this works as advertised. So: > >=20 > > If you already touch the same line, you can also adapt style in one go. > But since the style change is also done in a second place, which is not > touched by this patch, it's fine like Max did it too. > > > Tested-by: Stefan Sterz > >=20 > >> + if (!(defined($monhash->{$monid}) || > >> + grep { exists($_->{name}) && $_->{name} eq $monid } @$monlist)) > > While I suppose we do not expect an entry with undef value here, you do > not want to compare against undef (just leads to an ugly Perl warning), > so this should be a definedness check, not an existence check. Good catch, thanks! Will send in a v2. > > >> { > >> die "no such monitor id '$monid'\n" > >> } > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > pve-devel mailing list > > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel > >=20 > >=20