From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EBCC69232
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:00:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A9E61A8E2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:00:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 122381A8D4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:00:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D5437462C5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:00:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e25b4311-61a2-57c3-ffb9-fd64f6ccad33@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:00:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/86.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
References: <20210222150353.1449090-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210222150353.1449090-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.056 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [lxc.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container] fix #3313: recover unprivileged
 bit from old config during pct restore
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: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:00:34 -0000

On 22.02.21 16:03, Oguz Bektas wrote:
> since pct defaults to privileged containers, it restores the container
> as privileged when `--unprivileged 1` is not passed.
> 
> instead we should check the old configuration and retrieve it
> from there.
> 
> this way, when one creates an unprivileged container on GUI, it will be
> still restored as unprivileged via pct (without having to pass
> `--unprivileged 1` parameter)
> 

some comments on top of Fabis review (thanks for that!)

> Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm
> index 8ce462f..4168a7c 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm
> @@ -362,6 +362,10 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
>  			# 'lxc.idmap' entries. We need to make sure that the extracted contents
>  			# of the container match up with the restored configuration afterwards:
>  			$conf->{lxc} = $orig_conf->{lxc};
> +
> +			# we also need to make sure the privileged/unprivileged bit is recovered
> +			# from the old config if the parameter is not passed


also shorten the comment when sending a v2, either omit it as its clear what happens
and this is not a manual edge case like "lxc" (which is not handled by our API).
If use a short "ensure to restore privileged level if not overwritten", but its just
redundant..


> +			$conf->{unprivileged} = $orig_conf->{unprivileged} if !defined $unprivileged && $orig_conf->{unprivileged};

1. seems like a pretty long line, is this under the 100 cc max?

2. should the check be: !defined($unprivileged) && defined($orig_conf->{unprivileged});

3. nit: we normally use parentheses for defined()


>  		    }
>  		}
>  		if ($storage_only_mode) {
>