From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99649AB00
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:29:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B405736285
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:29:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:29:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BFBB643EB9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:29:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:29:22 +0100 (CET)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <1066010498.4111.1700234962992@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <lkbhuyb7rigabgjeq3fonsnw2gqpk6ljygxdk3rjpqb4v3fbon@ajxlwrlpkkdm>
References: <20231116153128.788593-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<20231116153128.788593-3-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<lkbhuyb7rigabgjeq3fonsnw2gqpk6ljygxdk3rjpqb4v3fbon@ajxlwrlpkkdm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev54
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.066 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control 2/2] pools: record
parent/subpool information
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:29:54 -0000
> Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> hat am 17.11.2023 11:10 CET ge=
schrieben:
>=20
> =20
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 04:31:26PM +0100, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
> > and ensure a missing intermediate pool exists at all times.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> >=20
> > Notes:
> > a "missing link" should never happen when modifying via the API (bo=
th deletion
> > with children and addition without the parent existing is blocked t=
here), but
> > it could happen when manually editing the config.
> >=20
> > src/PVE/AccessControl.pm | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > src/test/parser_writer.pl | 4 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm b/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm
> > index d9ae611..e33f844 100644
> > --- a/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm
> > +++ b/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm
> > @@ -1529,7 +1529,19 @@ sub parse_user_config {
> > =09 }
> > =20
> > =09 # make sure to add the pool (even if there are no members)
> > -=09 $cfg->{pools}->{$pool} =3D { vms =3D> {}, storage =3D> {} } if =
!$cfg->{pools}->{$pool};
> > +=09 $cfg->{pools}->{$pool} =3D { vms =3D> {}, storage =3D> {}, pool=
s =3D> {} } if !$cfg->{pools}->{$pool};
> > +
> > +=09 if ($pool =3D~ m!/!) {
> > +=09=09my $curr =3D $pool;
> > +=09=09while ($curr =3D~ m!^(.*)/[^/]+$!) {
>=20
> I wonder if we should use `.+` instead of `.*`.
> This way it would work the same even with a leading slash.
> That said, we don't allow leading slashes and there's a verify_poolname
> further up in the function so it doesn't really matter much.
> We just need to be careful that we never allow/introduce leading slashes
> anywhere, otherwise this runs with a final iteration where $parent is an
> empty string.
ack.
> > +=09=09 # ensure nested pool info is correctly recorded
> > +=09=09 my $parent =3D $1;
> > +=09=09 $cfg->{pools}->{$curr}->{parent} =3D $parent;
> > +=09=09 $cfg->{pools}->{$parent} =3D { vms =3D> {}, storage =3D> {},=
pools =3D> {} } if !$cfg->{pools}->{$parent};
>=20
> (could use //=3D instead of the suffix if, IMO a bit easier to read (and
> doesn't break the 100 char limit :p)
that style is used across the whole parser here, I am always a bit hesitant=
to mix styles within a sub as IMHO that makes it harder to parse.
move the post-if to its own line, and optional follow-up to convert the who=
le parser to drop post ifs for initialization? ;)