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 516FC92323 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 14:40:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3059B1079C for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 14:40:19 +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, 1 Feb 2024 14:40:18 +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 3824E40B84 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 14:40:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 14:40:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20240130184041.1125674-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20240130184041.1125674-4-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <1706701463.bcepid72cn.astroid@yuna.none> From: Max Carrara In-Reply-To: <1706701463.bcepid72cn.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.037 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_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com, cephconfig.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-storage 3/8] cephconfig: support sections in the format of [client.$NAME] X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 13:40:19 -0000 On 1/31/24 14:18, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > On January 30, 2024 7:40 pm, Max Carrara wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Max Carrara >> --- >> src/PVE/CephConfig.pm | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm b/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm >> index 6b10d46..46b92ea 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/CephConfig.pm >> @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ sub write_ceph_config { >> >> &$cond_write_sec('global'); >> &$cond_write_sec('client'); >> + &$cond_write_sec('client\..*'); >> >> &$cond_write_sec('mds'); >> &$cond_write_sec('mon'); > > this whole code is a bit weird (pre-existing, not your patch in > particular).. > > should we maybe switch it to > - keep track of sections which were already written > - write out all not-yet-written sections as a last step? I agree that it's somewhat strange - I initially stumbled across it *after* finishing patch 5 and I discovered that it wouldn't write the 'client.crash' section at all. I figured we might only allow certain sections in that case. `ceph_parse_config` parses the *whole* config anyway, so I don't see why we couldn't just also support writing "arbitrary" sections. > > else, a RMW cycle might lose config sections just because this code is > not aware of them? That is indeed what happened, but as stated above, I had assumed we only allow specific sections. while we're at it, double-checking how the ceph > parser handles sections with whitespace in their name and other funny > business might be a good idea, just to prevent any discrepancy between > our parser and theirs.. Will check, thanks! Overall, I'll adapt this in v2 to support writing arbitrary sections while also checking whether it's in line with the way Ceph handles things. > > > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel > >