[ceph-users] "rgw relaxed s3 bucket names" and underscores

Ryan Leimenstoll rleimens at umiacs.umd.edu
Tue Oct 2 17:45:40 PDT 2018

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!


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

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2 at gentoo.org> 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 at gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20181002/b47aa258/attachment.html>

More information about the ceph-users mailing list