From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 8C75A7CDEE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:27:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 82D0E2A9D0
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:26:49 +0200 (CEST)
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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:26:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 29D254260B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:26:48 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <f3120e3c-cd50-66ec-26c1-045697a1de0a@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:26:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:103.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/103.0
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220719114639.3035048-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20220719114639.3035048-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.092 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. [shared.pm, rpcenvironment.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH many] add cluster-wide hardware device
mapping
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:27:19 -0000
just a quick note, aaron noticed some small things immediately,
root@pam did not see the hardware panel:
access control needs this diff:
----8<----
diff --git a/src/PVE/RPCEnvironment.pm b/src/PVE/RPCEnvironment.pm
index c1b712d..b686c6b 100644
--- a/src/PVE/RPCEnvironment.pm
+++ b/src/PVE/RPCEnvironment.pm
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ sub compute_api_permission {
};
map { $res->{$_} = {} } keys %$priv_re_map;
- my $required_paths = ['/', '/nodes', '/access/groups', '/vms', '/storage', '/sdn'];
+ my $required_paths = ['/', '/nodes', '/access/groups', '/vms', '/storage', '/sdn', '/hardware'];
my $checked_paths = {};
foreach my $path (@$required_paths, keys %{$usercfg->{acl}}) {
---->8----
and qemu-server does not build without root without this:
----8<----
diff --git a/test/MigrationTest/Shared.pm b/test/MigrationTest/Shared.pm
index 8ae6a6e..bcbd769 100644
--- a/test/MigrationTest/Shared.pm
+++ b/test/MigrationTest/Shared.pm
@@ -69,6 +69,16 @@ $cluster_module->mock(
},
);
+our $hardware_map_module = Test::MockModule->new("PVE::HardwareMap");
+$hardware_map_module->mock(
+ find_device_on_current_node => sub {
+ return {};
+ },
+ config => sub {
+ return {};
+ },
+);
+
our $ha_config_module = Test::MockModule->new("PVE::HA::Config");
$ha_config_module->mock(
vm_is_ha_managed => sub {
---->8-----
i'll send a v2 when i get some more feedback
(i'll also include some tests then)