--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
[PATCH 0/2] Flag missing netmasks early on |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Dec 2021 18:02:27 +0100 |
Hi!
As discussed yesterday on IRC, I mistakenly configured a machine with
something like:
(network-address
(device "eno1")
(value "1.2.3.4"))
This results in having a “/0” subnet, thereby preventing the addition
of a route without a clear diagnostic from Guile-Netlink or ‘ip’.
To avoid this, this patch flags it at expansion time (if possible) or
at run time, before the machine configuration is built.
Did I go overboard with ‘define-compile-time-procedure’? I don’t think
so :-), I think it will serve us more than once.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
Ludovic Courtès (2):
combinators: Add 'define-compile-time-procedure'.
services: static-networking: Sanitize <network-address> values.
gnu/services/base.scm | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
guix/combinators.scm | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
base-commit: 4204156eb4c1afd5365ef505e356f87daa91787d
--
2.33.0
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: bug#52603: [PATCH 0/2] Flag missing netmasks early on |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:28:05 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:
>> To avoid this, this patch flags it at expansion time (if possible) or
>> at run time, before the machine configuration is built.
>>
>> Did I go overboard with ‘define-compile-time-procedure’? I don’t think
>> so :-), I think it will serve us more than once.
>
> I tested this series, works fine! It is still possible to pass incorrect
> netmasks (negative, > 32 for IPv4), but they should be way less frequent
> than forgetting to add a netmask.
Yeah…
Pushed as 4df584aeac56fb6575ba43bc94f60f04522caf88, thanks for testing!
Ludo’.
--- End Message ---