From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A17E1FF0B2 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:05:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CFE9C2169B; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:05:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:05:00 +0200 From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: Re: SPAM: [PATCH container/firewall/manager/network/qemu-server v3 00/16] handle dangling references when firewall objects go away Message-ID: References: <20260925094230.844917-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260925094230.844917-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790334301097 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.388 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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 Message-ID-Hash: YM26LAB5UTDKDD2WCSVUWMW7QFY53JE2 X-Message-ID-Hash: YM26LAB5UTDKDD2WCSVUWMW7QFY53JE2 X-MailFrom: a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 11:42:14AM +0200, Arthur Bied-Charreton wrote: > Renaming or deleting a firewall object (an IPSet or an alias) that rules > still reference leaves those references dangling. The firewall fails to > parse the affected rules and drops them from the generated ruleset, so > an edit in one place can disable a whole set of rules somewhere. This > is especially bad in the rename case, where one might reasonably expect > the references to follow the new object name. > > This series makes the affected operations offer to deal with the > references instead of leaving them behind. > > [...] forgot to add: there are pre-built packages on sani under packages/abied-charreton/firewall-object-references/v3