From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCB351FF0AA for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:34:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 06CB6216E1; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:34:37 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:34:32 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH common/manager v2 0/2] fix #8006: acme: lifetime-based certificate renewal threshold From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "David Riley" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20261020082415.35215-1-d.riley@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20261020082415.35215-1-d.riley@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792503272212 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.240 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: QCNG73GDOWNK562VJCHCRVM342GQAJG6 X-Message-ID-Hash: QCNG73GDOWNK562VJCHCRVM342GQAJG6 X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Tested this version as well, running through the following scenarios: - Checked that with only 72h remaining, certs are always considered due for renewal and are renewed by pveupdate. Generated a couple of certs for this at 24h, 72h, 96h. For 96h the scaling should use 2, so 48h, but the floor raises this to 72h. So I forwarded time by 23h, such that the certificate was not considered due for renewal yet and thus refused. At 24h(+1s) after issuance and every point after, renewal worked. Works as expected! - Also checked that the scaling works by using a 216h and a 240h certificate, with the switch to 1/3 scaling being applied to 240h and longer-lived certs. - Just to be sure (and because I wanted to try), I also used pebble [0] and configured it to use 96h certs and ran renewals again at the 3-day floor. Also had it issue longer-lived certificates and tried to make it miss/fail renewal, but couldn't. I also had a look at the code and left some minor comments regarding the structure of the series. The implementation itself looks good to me now. Consider this: Reviewed-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl Tested-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl [0] https://github.com/letsencrypt/pebble On Tue Oct 20, 2026 at 10:24 AM CEST, David Riley wrote: > Thanks Michael K. for taking a look. > > Differences from v1: > * Refactor: Reduce certificate reads by combining the read of > notBefore and notAfter. > * Add: Warning users of certificates with lifetime <=3D 0 > * Add: minimum lead time of 3 days > * Update 'force' parameter description in API schema [snip]