-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 542
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[cleaner] Improve IPV6 MAC address RE #3766
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[cleaner] Improve IPV6 MAC address RE #3766
Conversation
Current RE obfuscates also UUID strings, let be more strict. Resolves: sosreport#3766 Relevant: sosreport#3736 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>
b0f5530
to
3d76300
Compare
Congratulations! One of the builds has completed. 🍾 You can install the built RPMs by following these steps:
Please note that the RPMs should be used only in a testing environment. |
Current RE obfuscates also UUID strings, let be more strict. Resolves: sosreport#3766 Relevant: sosreport#3736 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>
3d76300
to
3b6a1fe
Compare
In testing this, I've found a false positive match. It is a little artificial, but I think worth discussing. We picked up an IPv6 substring as a mac address match, in That's a rather weird filepath, but it gets picked up by the
The second bind address is getting obfuscated as a mac address, as it gets converted to:
This is likely influenced by the fact that we skip link-local addresses (starting with This specific example is in a comment of an example template, but we could very well see real world collisions like this. |
You mean cleaner should skip obfuscating the I can fix this within my PR, but I feel it rather deserves a new issue/PR. As I think the fix should change the code elsewhere than in the RE declaration (is there a not-over-complex RE stating "I am IPV6 MAC address but not link-local one"? I would rather add a test "RE matched, but isn't it link-local?" later on). Is my idea "fix elsewhere than in RE declaration" sane? Worth extending the PR or raising a new issue (that I can work on, I dont mean my post to kick the concern away from me)? My 2c is to raise a new issue I will prepare a PR for. |
This isn't a direct case of skipping With current With this PR, the part after If you clear your default_mapping file and run this locally, then you'll see an entry for the IPv6 IP mapper in the private_map that gets generated for your eth0 (or equivalent) ipv6 address, and then that address (after |
Current RE obfuscates also UUID strings, let be more strict. Resolves: sosreport#3766 Relevant: sosreport#3736 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>
3b6a1fe
to
a9b0161
Compare
This was dirty and I hit a limitation of Try my script:
That fails with current
The match works differently for addresses with |
Current RE obfuscates also UUID strings, let be more strict. Resolves: sosreport#3766 Relevant: sosreport#3736 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>
a9b0161
to
cc91383
Compare
Current RE obfuscates also UUID strings, let be more strict. Resolves: sosreport#3766 Relevant: sosreport#3736 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>
cc91383
to
94c81c6
Compare
Why |
It seems that this was added to pylint via pylint-dev/pylint#9842 not too long ago. I'll open an issue or a PR to discuss what to do with it. |
Current RE obfuscates also UUID strings, let be more strict.
Resolves: #3766
Relevant: #3736
Please place an 'X' inside each '[]' to confirm you adhere to our Contributor Guidelines