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