From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.wagner@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 1D1D9A0E8F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F0F2E1D3C4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:07 +0100 (CET)
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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B053747A69
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <8e0e37cd-3ff3-4070-b1e3-b5834d97ec52@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231107124607.571477-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
 <40f1858f-2294-4e60-9a93-319a5efdb4be@proxmox.com>
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <40f1858f-2294-4e60-9a93-319a5efdb4be@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.164 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
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL          0.1 Meta: its spam
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control 1/2] acl: allow more nesting
 for /mapping acl paths
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:47:08 -0000



On 11/10/23 09:18, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 07/11/2023 um 13:46 schrieb Lukas Wagner:
>> This will be needed for ACL paths for the notification system,
>> which will get separate namespaces for targets and matchers:
>>
>> /mapping/notification/targets/<name>
>> as well as
>> /mapping/notification/matchers/<name>
> 
> Not that it matters much to this supporting patch, but above should all
> use the singular, or? I.e., like "notification" also use "target" and
> "matcher".
> 

Yeah, I also was kind of unsure about that, but in the end I used the 
plural form because that's what I use for the API routes.

e.g.
/cluster/notifications/targets
/cluster/notifications/matchers


However, now I see another discrepancy I missed before, the API route 
also uses 'notifications' in its plural form.
So maybe it would make sense to have the ACL tree nodes match that 
exactlty? E.g.
/mapping/notifications/targets

I don't have any strong preference for any form, I just think
that some consistency with the API would be nice - and changing
the API routes would be much more work ;)

And regarding the granularity: Yes, maybe that's a bit overkill now. The 
per-target permissions were kind of important with the 'old' system 
where we would select a target at the notification call site (e.g. a 
backup job), but with the new 'pub-sub'-alike system it probably does 
not matter that much any more. But I don't really have any strong 
preference here as well.

-- 
- Lukas