From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 8E71E9F1A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:56:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7F4F925EBD for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:56:23 +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 571ED25EB4 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:56:22 +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 2910242602 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:56:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <59b33eac-7203-3a9c-4517-b3c0f13d5f29@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:56:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20220427113600.166803-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20220427113600.166803-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.025 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 Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH manager] api2: network: anybridge: re-add regular bridges 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: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:56:53 -0000 On 27.04.22 13:36, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > commit 052fbb2a4d1bdeb490b2e3b67cd7555e460ebe93 introduced permission > checks here that caused all regular bridges to be removed from the > returned list as soon as the SDN package is installed, unless the user > is root@pam or there exists a VNET with the same ID. >=20 > this is arguably a breaking change, so limit the priv check to actually= > defined VNETs for the time being, and add ALL regular bridges > uncondtionally like before. >=20 > get_local_vnets already filters by the same prvs, so we need to get the= > full config to find out which IDs are VNETs and which are not. >=20 > once/iff we introduce ACL paths for *all* bridges in the future, we can= > limit accordingly here. >=20 > CC: Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> > --- > PVE/API2/Network.pm | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >=20 > applied, thanks!