From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D75B71FF09B for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:06:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A22DC21357; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:06:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8b7f0ecd-2a00-45e7-828d-780c4d7e325a@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:06:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 proxmox-backup] config: invalidate CachedUserInfo after ACL changes To: Robert Obkircher , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260818133556.298498-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <73eba739-16da-4b38-9aa4-6947064d0d5e@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <73eba739-16da-4b38-9aa4-6947064d0d5e@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1788185170299 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.688 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_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium 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: C7NK4RYJO76MFI7THGQBUYALPZM6DK3K X-Message-ID-Hash: C7NK4RYJO76MFI7THGQBUYALPZM6DK3K X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 8/31/26 3:30 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: > > On 28.08.26 11:18, Christian Ebner wrote: >> One tiny nit inline and one high level comment: We currently do not >> document the 5 second caching behavior for manual config file edits, >> not for the user and not for the acl introduced here. We do have a >> warning with respect to the more critical 60 seconds for >> token.shadow caching [0] but maybe we could add a note to the end of >> [1,2] for completeness as well? > > Do we support manual changes at all? If so, we would also have to > document that changes must be atomic renames instead of in-place > updates, and that we recognize them based on mtime. Good point, makes me question if the currently documented behavior for token.shadow stands and does not falsely imply that this is possible without the risk of inconsistencies. Might be worth to mention this for that warning and in general, but out of scope for this patch. > > The timeout is also not even guaranteed to be 5 seconds, because it is > based on system time instead of a monotonic clock. I assume this is > because Instant doesn't work on wasm, but it woudn't be that hard to > conditionally re-export it in proxmox-sys and replace it with a > performance.now() wrapper on wasm targets. > > (Imo the generation and timeout checks also belong in the individual > cached_config methods instead of CachedUserInfo::new, but I'll leave > it as-is for now.)