From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.weber@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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9A694245 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:45:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 25F58E85E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:45:06 +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>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:45:05 +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 46A9143ACE for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:45:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <a87bbe5f-54c1-49dd-a123-63489e823471@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:45:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> References: <20240402145523.683008-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240402145523.683008-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.068 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v5 pve-storage, pve-manager 00/11] Fix #4759: Configure Permissions for ceph-crash.service 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: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:45:06 -0000 On 02/04/2024 16:55, Max Carrara wrote: > Fix #4759: Configure Permissions for ceph-crash.service - Version 5 > =================================================================== Thanks for the v4! Consider this Tested-by: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> Details: - like Maximiliano, removed the version check against 0.0.0 for testing - set up a fresh PVE 8.1 cluster (without Ceph yet) and installed the patched pve-storage and pve-manager. Noticed that this creates /etc/pve/ceph/ even though Ceph is not set up, but I suppose this is intended (and the extra directory shouldn't hurt). Afterwards, set up a Quincy cluster. Did not notice any issues. Keyring was created and Ceph config was written correctly, ceph-crash was able to post crash reports. - installed patched packages on top of my existing PVE 8.1 + Reef cluster, did not notice any issues. As expected, ceph-crash was restarted and started posting crash reports. - did the same for an existing PVE 8.0 + Quincy cluster (as part of the upgrade to PVE 8.1), did not notice any issues - installed on top of a Ceph-less standalone node, did not notice any issues