From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <s.ivanov@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 9B92974DC2 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:52:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 902D12AAE9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:52:07 +0200 (CEST) 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 id 758BC2AAD9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:52:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 466654302A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:52:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:52:04 +0200 From: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com> To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <20210622185204.37a259bf@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <80dd1c9f-75c8-9010-9267-8b3191f09e0a@proxmox.com> References: <20210622142824.18773-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <5f4ba4d0-8092-0096-5b10-7f02d50fc865@proxmox.com> <20210622171022.23690ff6@rosa.proxmox.com> <80dd1c9f-75c8-9010-9267-8b3191f09e0a@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.648 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [plugin.pm, pbsplugin.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] run_command: untaint end of buffer 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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:52:07 -0000 On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:15:08 +0200 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote: > On 22.06.21 17:10, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > > I had a patch for untainting the individual values in > > PVE::Storage::Plugin::volume_size_info but then went with this patch, > > I'd rather have that patch, especially for back-porting to stable. Makes sense - sent the patch for pve-storage > I mean, else we can probably just turn of the taint mode completely, what's the > point then. I'm always a bit (too) cautious when it comes to turning of 'security' related 'features' (even if mostly doubting that taint-mode fits either of those 2 categories) - so not sure about disabling it in general the taint of the some of the run_command output on the other hand was introduced as a side-effect with the changes last year afaict, and has caused at least 2 glitches since then... > > > since I expect the issue of output not ending in newline or being longer > > than 4k to linger in a few places in our code. > > > > For the volume_size_info calls of our storage plugins - a quick check says > > only PBSPlugin.pm and Plugin.pm could cause this issue > > can we patch it there then too?