From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 292FE1FF0E9 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:22:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EC4DB21436; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:22:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] add 'additive' flag to ACL entries Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:19:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20260715232121.1009607-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784157668300 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.259 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: U4TIN4CBHFISI4ZVCL7HVEPNVEFP2H4I X-Message-ID-Hash: U4TIN4CBHFISI4ZVCL7HVEPNVEFP2H4I X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: By default a more specific ACL entry on a deeper path fully replaces the roles inherited from ancestor paths. That works well for scoped delegation, but it is awkward when a role should apply to a whole subtree. Take an auditor group that needs read access everywhere: today that role has to be repeated on every deeper entry, and it quietly stops applying as soon as someone adds a more specific ACL below. I run into this frequently on some of our own infra especially if users are part of multiple groups. So, to make this a bit easier this series adds an optional per-entry 'additive' flag. An additive entry's roles are carried down the walk and merged with more specific entries below instead of being replaced; NoAccess still dominates. On disk it is a compact '+' option field on the acl: line, exposed via the API and CLI as a boolean 'additive'. See the docs patch - especially its Notes section - for some more details. Sending as RFC mainly for feedback on the overall semantics and also happy to bikeshed the name and the on-disk '+' encoding (an extensible option field, so future flags need no new positional column). Basic docs and UI integration included to make it a bit more complete and easier to test. pve-access-control: acl: support 'additive' option on ACL entries api: acl: expose 'additive' flag via GET and PUT src/PVE/API2/ACL.pm | 75 ++++++++++-- src/PVE/AccessControl.pm | 247 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- src/test/Makefile | 2 + src/test/api-acl-test.pl | 223 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ src/test/parser_writer.pl | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++ src/test/perm-test9.pl | 181 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ src/test/test9.cfg | 86 +++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 898 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) pve-manager: ui: acl: expose the 'additive' ACL flag www/manager6/dc/ACLView.js | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) pve-docs: pveum: document 'additive' ACL option pveum.adoc | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+) base-commit: dcda7019c90c550995e784c165c9786d5cef4ed3 -- 2.47.3