From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F4C1FF187 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:30:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DC30C33EF1; Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:32:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <7f609be6-b8f8-438e-9a02-1886be0ef4bc@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:32:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Friedrich Weber To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , Fiona Ebner References: <20250725154936.281471-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <1753696364.bhxw524hb8.astroid@yuna.none> <3761b4ee-dc20-47d7-a3fa-43e841c20150@proxmox.com> <1753705257.fpgqi5nlu1.astroid@yuna.none> <3d16f677-c0fc-4f1d-9e4b-02daecf9894b@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <3d16f677-c0fc-4f1d-9e4b-02daecf9894b@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753709527600 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.012 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] plugin: volume snapshot info: untaint snapshot filename X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: w.bumiller@proxmox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 28/07/2025 15:30, Friedrich Weber wrote: [...] >> should hopefully not be too hard to fix, I'll try to whip up patches.. > > Thanks! I guess then (and if we want to add an untaint here at all) we > could keep this patch as it is, because qemu-img info does seem to > output an absolute "filename" even if the backing filename is absolute? > What do you think? Sorry, didn't see the apply. Thanks! A patch for run_command to always pass untainted values could be done in addition, I guess. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel