Re: "rgw relaxed s3 bucket names" and underscores

[Ryan Leimenstoll <rleimens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nope, you are right. I think it was just boto catching this for me and I took that for granted. 

I think that is the behavior I would expect too, S3-compliant restrictions on create and allow legacy buckets to remain. Anyway, noticed you created a ticket [0] in the tracker for this, thanks!

Best,

Ryan

[0] https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/36293

On Oct 2, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 12:37:02PM -0400, Ryan Leimenstoll wrote:

I was hoping to get some clarification on what "rgw relaxed s3 bucket
names = false” is intended to filter.

Yes, it SHOULD have caught this case, but does not.

Are you sure it rejects the uppercase? My test also showed that it did
NOT reject the uppercase as intended.

This code did used to work, I contributed to the logic and discussion
for earlier versions. A related part I wanted was allowing access to
existing buckets w/ relaxed names, but disallowing creating of relaxed
names.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@xxxxxxxxxx
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com