From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99FD769FDA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:49:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8465F346E1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:49:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (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 BA1EF346D2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:49:17 +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 7E44E46324
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:49:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <ee6cd50a-0575-d01b-7626-8d65faf55314@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:49:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/86.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210222132407.30337-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210222132407.30337-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.054 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH common] network:
 get_local_ip_from_cidr: return unique IPs
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:49:49 -0000

On 22.02.21 14:24, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> to avoid erroring out when "multiple" addresses are configured on live
> migration, when in fact it's the same IP multiple times.
> 
> Seems like the same problem for a caller in pve-cluster was fixed by checking
> the uniqueness afterwards, see commit 266041169beb36c8892ca54265e2d91335307ffb
> in pve-cluster. But there doesn't seem to be any caller relying on the current
> behavior, and no additional information other than the addresses are returned,
> so fix it here.
> 
> Reported here:
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/live-migration-of-vms-via-full-mesh-network-could-not-get-ip-multiple-addresses-configured-on-local-node-for-network.84585/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  src/PVE/Network.pm | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!

Follow'd up with ensuring the returned array is always sorted in a stable manner,
perl hash key pseudo random ordering is just a pain..