From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C720D1FF164 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:41:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B4EBEC8C5; Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:41:26 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 12:41:23 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Shannon Sterz" To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-69-g65571b67d7d3-dirty References: <20241108113049.263998-1-m.almalat@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20241108113049.263998-1-m.almalat@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.044 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox-widget-toolkit] ui: mac-prefix-validation 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Fri Nov 8, 2024 at 12:30 PM CET, Moayad Almalat wrote: > > Allow four-octet MAC prefixes in Web UI validation > update the MAC prefix validation in the Web UI to support four-octet > prefixes. > > Signed-off-by: Moayad Almalat > --- > src/Toolkit.js | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/Toolkit.js b/src/Toolkit.js > index 8a0138d..42dbfaa 100644 > --- a/src/Toolkit.js > +++ b/src/Toolkit.js > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ Ext.apply(Ext.form.field.VTypes, { > MacAddressText: gettext('Example') + ': 01:23:45:67:89:ab', > > MacPrefix: function(v) { > - return (/^[a-f0-9][02468ace](?::[a-f0-9]{2}){0,2}:?$/i).test(v); > + return (/^[a-f0-9][02468ace](?::[a-f0-9]{2}){0,3}:?$/i).test(v); this still does not match `BC:24:11:0` as we recommend in our docs as this regex requires the fourth octet to also be complete and not just a nible. you could do something like this: ``` /^[a-f0-9][02468ace](?::[a-f0-9]{2}){0,2}(?::[a-f0-9]{0,2})?:?$/i ``` this would allow the last octet to be incomplete too, but i wonder if at that point we want to generally allow longer prefixes and just make sure that a prefix address is not a) a multicast prefix b) a broadcast prefix and c) a complete set of 6 octets. that may be simpler and more future proof? > }, > MacPrefixMask: /[a-fA-F0-9:]/, > MacPrefixText: gettext('Example') + ': 02:8f - ' + gettext('only unicast addresses are allowed'), _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel