From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <p.hufnagl@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 F0E30BA6F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D2AD31F17F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:40 +0200 (CEST) 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>; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7DAC743E2F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <c5c95cc1-fe7b-4fe7-9ef3-b55b0ce50c79@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230808091342.637190-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <a3ea6ca3-9e48-9b93-7c9e-4ba137880275@proxmox.com> <22eba78f-dec2-42ff-9d75-3107aecdd981@proxmox.com> <dcf64dc1-a392-d1c1-952c-4a0b4e9ab009@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <dcf64dc1-a392-d1c1-952c-4a0b4e9ab009@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.005 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 HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] fix #474: allow transfer from container/vms 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: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:47:41 -0000 On 8/10/23 09:16, Fiona Ebner wrote: > But it should. After all, the operation is modifying the original pool, > so the user better have an appropriate permission to do so. > Currently, Permissions.Modify|VM.Allocate on the VM and Pool.Allocate on > the target pool would be enough to "steal" the guest, no permissions > required on the original pool at all. IMHO, the user really should have > a Pool.Allocate on the original pool as well. You are right! It would be possible to "steal" a VM in a way that it was not before! Thank you for finding this! Will fix! > Since I noticed it in v3: we usually use "api:" and "ui:" as prefixes > rather than "backend:" and "frontend:". Would be nice if you could use > them too for consistency. Ok. Good to know. I will do that. Thanks