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 <https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/36293> > On Oct 2, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@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 : robb...@gentoo.org > GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 > GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
