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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F031C1731 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:59:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0D5FE35E13 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:58:51 +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 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:58:49 +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 446F3454B6 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:58:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:58:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240111105123.370028-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <2ccd9b6e-0fc6-4d6e-9c7a-d6d29d9fa4f3@proxmox.com> <9114e124-bda6-4e1a-903d-3c54d59a5373@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hannes_D=C3=BCrr?= In-Reply-To: <9114e124-bda6-4e1a-903d-3c54d59a5373@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.399 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 SCC_BODY_URI_ONLY 2.799 - 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] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH cluster/manager/storage/docs 0/9] fix #4886: improve SSH handling 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: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:59:21 -0000 On 1/16/24 11:34, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 15/01/2024 um 16:53 schrieb Hannes Dürr: >> Tested cluster creation with three new nodes on 8.1 and the patches >> Cluster creation and further ssh communication (eq. migration) worked >> flawless >> >> Tested-by: Hannes Duerr > What about the reinstallation of an existing node, or replacing > one, while keeping the same nodename scenario? I have covered removal and rejoin of a node as well. > As that was one of the main original reasons for this change here > in the first place. > > For the removal you could play through the documented procedure > and send a patch for update it accordingly, as e.g., the part > about the node’s SSH keys remaining in the pmxcfs authorized_key > file would need some change to reflect that this is not true > for newer setups (once this series is applied and the respective > packages got bumped and released). > > https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-pvecm.html#pvecm_separate_node_without_reinstall