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 DB8C29152B for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:04:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BD7B34807 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:04:47 +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 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:04:46 +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 798244817E for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:04:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:04:45 +0100 From: Christoph Heiss To: Fiona Ebner Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: References: <20231121094230.309931-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <97b2b802-5e4b-42cc-9623-72fafb7b9495@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <97b2b802-5e4b-42cc-9623-72fafb7b9495@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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 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. [nixos.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container] setup: nixos: set cmode to console by default 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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:04:47 -0000 Thanks for the review! On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 03:47:34PM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 21.11.23 um 10:40 schrieb Christoph Heiss: [..] > > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/NixOS.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/NixOS.pm > > index c702f3d..7f23111 100644 > > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/NixOS.pm > > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/NixOS.pm > > @@ -17,6 +17,11 @@ sub new { > > > > $conf->{ostype} = "nixos"; > > > > + # Set `cmode` to `console` for NixOS containers, as getty is only configured for /dev/console by > > + # default, but not any TTY ports. This way, users still get a login/shell instead of just a > > + # blank screen when openinng the console in the web UI. > > + $conf->{cmode} = 'console'; > > + > > return bless $self, $class; > > } > > > > Won't this override any pre-existing setting (from user or backup)? > Even if checking for that, it could still be considered a breaking > change, i.e. other people might have configured their NixOS container > differently, so maybe best to wait for the next major release? Yep, just tried that out - so that's definitely a no-go. > > For now, we could log a warning if no explicit 'cmode' was specified for > NixOS. > > I don't see any other implementation of new() overriding any defaults. > Should we even start doing that? Well, looking at the code again, there is the ->template_fixup() sub, which gets called on restores after ->new(). This does seem to override some things (e.g. ->setup_securetty()) for most of the distros. So I guess this would be correct place after all for this, if we override something. Anyway, so just a warn "..." if `$conf->{cmode} ne 'console'`; if ->new() would be acceptable?