bug#52603: closed ([PATCH 0/2] Flag missing netmasks early on)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:28:05 +0100
with message-id <87zgovgut6.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#52603: [PATCH 0/2] Flag missing netmasks early on
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #52603,
regarding [PATCH 0/2] Flag missing netmasks early on
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
52603: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=52603
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- 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 ---