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 31F3463092 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:26:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23CAF20F52 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:26:07 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 4989920EEB for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:26:05 +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 1BED84612B for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:26:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:26:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Aaron Lauterer References: <20211126150255.1819278-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20211126150255.1819278-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.135 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [cephconfig.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] CephConfig: ensure newline in $secret parameter 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: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:26:07 -0000 Am 26.11.21 um 16:02 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: > Ensure that the user provided $secret ends in a newline. Otherwise we > will have Input/output errors from rados_connect. > Reviewed-by: Fabian Ebner Tested-by: Fabian Ebner > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer > --- > PVE/CephConfig.pm | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/PVE/CephConfig.pm b/PVE/CephConfig.pm > index 5c94a04..ac28e76 100644 > --- a/PVE/CephConfig.pm > +++ b/PVE/CephConfig.pm > @@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ sub ceph_create_keyfile { > eval { > if (defined($secret)) { > mkdir '/etc/pve/priv/ceph'; > + $secret = "${secret}\n" if $secret !~ m/\n$/; > PVE::Tools::file_set_contents($ceph_storage_keyring, $secret, 0400); > } elsif ($type eq 'rbd') { > mkdir '/etc/pve/priv/ceph'; Just one thing I'm wondering: AFAIU there is no problem for CephFS currently, but for consistency/future-proving, we might put a newline there as well when the $secret is not user-provided. I.e. below, $cephfs_secret isn't newline-terminated: } elsif ($type eq 'cephfs') { my $cephfs_secret = $ceph_get_key->($ceph_admin_keyring, 'admin'); mkdir '/etc/pve/priv/ceph'; PVE::Tools::file_set_contents($ceph_storage_keyring, $cephfs_secret, 0400); }