From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 625A01FF0C2 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:30:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 342F02169B; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:30:06 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:30:03 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v5 19/42] notify: matcher: ensure that field names match SAFE_ID_REGEX From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Lukas Wagner" , , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20261022121608.271515-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20261022121608.271515-20-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20261022121608.271515-20-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792679403745 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.226 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: BEMFACJXP4KL7TDLL4FTGVEEKRLRKR32 X-Message-ID-Hash: BEMFACJXP4KL7TDLL4FTGVEEKRLRKR32 X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@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: Thanks for adding these. Considering the tests here all pass, I just quickly ran through some manual tests with pvesh with invalid field names in various expressions and everything seems to work as expected. 1 comment inline that can easily be a follow-up. Tested-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl Reviewed-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 2:15 PM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: [snip] > + match self { > + FieldMatcher::Exact { field, values } =3D> { > + if values.is_empty() { > + return Err(Error::Generic( > + "field matcher must contain values to match".to_= string(), > + )); > + } > + if !SAFE_ID_REGEX.is_match(field) { > + return Err(Error::Generic( > + "field name does not match regex pattern".to_str= ing(), nit: would benefit from mentioning the field as well. Something like "invalid field name {field}" or "field name {field} does not match regex pattern". > + )); > + } > + } > + FieldMatcher::Regex { field, .. } =3D> { > + if !SAFE_ID_REGEX.is_match(field) { > + return Err(Error::Generic( > + "field name does not match regex pattern".to_str= ing(), nit: same as above > + )); > + } > } > } > [snip]