From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C241FF13C for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 12:02:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C784912311; Thu, 28 May 2026 12:02:16 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 12:02:13 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager] ui: auto-installer: mark regenerating auto installer tokens as dangerous From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Shannon Sterz" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260528092618.111906-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779962505989 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.053 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 Message-ID-Hash: XQ7LRQNQHN5UPI7LLYL2TJFY7X5Z4TFY X-Message-ID-Hash: XQ7LRQNQHN5UPI7LLYL2TJFY7X5Z4TFY X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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 Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu May 28, 2026 at 11:54 AM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > IMO a bit borderline, as this is not like a classic API token where this > causes active service disruption. ack, FWIW, I checked what we do for classic API tokens, and while it's of course not the exact same thing, it seemed similar enough to use the same semantics here. > OTOH. setting that flag hasn't that big of an impact and doesn't really > hurt either, so fine. I'd just avoid using it for everything that can be > framed as destructive, as most things with a confirmation prompts might b= e, > as then it looses the punch a bit (or could again just be the default). > But when implementing these yesterday I also could not come up with a > definitive rule that always holds, so certainly not a clear cut - just > wanted to avoid that we use this to liberally now - as said, here it was > OK to do (except the short missing rationale). I'll make sure to ask for a more detailed rationale in the commit message next time, or add one myself if done easily enough!