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 A47071FF16B for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:30:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9739EBE0F; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:32:24 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:31:50 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion" , "Stefan Hanreich" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1-0-g2ecb8770224a References: <20250811141847.271476-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20250811141847.271476-3-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250811141847.271476-3-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1754983880086 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.021 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox-datacenter-privileged-api.rs, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] [PATCH proxmox-datacenter-manager 2/3] api: privileged: fix fchownat call X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" On Mon Aug 11, 2025 at 4:18 PM CEST, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > When starting the privileged API, the server would fail with the > following error messages: > > Error: unable to set ownership for api socket '/run/proxmox-datacenter-manager/priv.sock' - EINVAL: Invalid argument > > chown(2) only supports the AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, not AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW > so this was probably a oversight. Pass empty flags to fchownat > instead. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich > --- > server/src/bin/proxmox-datacenter-privileged-api.rs | 13 +++---------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/server/src/bin/proxmox-datacenter-privileged-api.rs b/server/src/bin/proxmox-datacenter-privileged-api.rs > index 66033eb..bd2c6dd 100644 > --- a/server/src/bin/proxmox-datacenter-privileged-api.rs > +++ b/server/src/bin/proxmox-datacenter-privileged-api.rs > @@ -161,16 +161,9 @@ async fn run() -> Result<(), Error> { > format_err!("unable to set mode for api socket '{sockpath:?}' - {err}") > })?; > > - fchownat( > - None, > - sockpath, > - None, > - Some(api_user.gid), > - AtFlags::AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW, > - ) > - .map_err(|err| { > - format_err!("unable to set ownership for api socket '{sockpath}' - {err}") > - })?; > + fchownat(None, sockpath, None, Some(api_user.gid), AtFlags::empty()).map_err( > + |err| format_err!("unable to set ownership for api socket '{sockpath}' - {err}"), > + )?; > > log::info!("created socket, notifying readiness to systemd and starting API server"); > For what it's worth, I already sent a similar patch that was already applied by Thomas, but I guess he did not push the changes. My patch used AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW instead of passing no flags, but since the socket is not and probably will never be a symlink, it should not matter. https://lore.proxmox.com/pdm-devel/20250807123712.218439-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com/T/#t _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel