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 59BAF631FA for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:19:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4433723176 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:18:43 +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 id 812B92316B for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:18:42 +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 556E1416FF for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:18:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:18:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20211126150255.1819278-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.001 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, perl.org] 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 14:19:13 -0000 On 1/24/22 15:03, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 17.01.22 11:11, Aaron Lauterer wrote: >> Ping? Patch should still apply >> >> On 11/26/21 16:02, Aaron Lauterer wrote: >>> Ensure that the user provided $secret ends in a newline. Otherwise we >>> will have Input/output errors from rados_connect. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer >>> --- >>>   PVE/CephConfig.pm | 1 + >>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/PVE/CephConfig.pm b/PVE/CephConfig.pm >>> index 5c94a04..ac28e76 100644 >>> --- a/PVE/CephConfig.pm >>> +++ b/PVE/CephConfig.pm >>> @@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ sub ceph_create_keyfile { >>>       eval { >>>           if (defined($secret)) { >>>           mkdir '/etc/pve/priv/ceph'; >>> +        $secret = "${secret}\n" if $secret !~ m/\n$/; > > FWIW, we normally use chomp for this, e.g.: > > chomp $secret > file_set_contents($ceph_storage_keyring, "$secret\n", 0400); > > https://perldoc.perl.org/functions/chomp > > IIRC, that little nit made me not apply+push it immediately and then it seems > like it went under the radar. Okay. I'll incorporate that in a v2