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))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FF3861920
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:48:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1803F24A2E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:47:31 +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 E17E724A21
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:47:29 +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 AA933449DE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:47:29 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20201202092113.15911-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20201202092113.15911-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <f6c27cbe-d619-60b7-6c1d-582bfbc828b6@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:47:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/84.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201202092113.15911-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.074 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. [tools.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 1/1] tools: add
extract_sensitive_params
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, 03 Dec 2020 08:48:01 -0000
On 02.12.20 10:21, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> moved and generalized from pve-storage, since we'll need it
> in more places
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> ---
> src/PVE/Tools.pm | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>=20
> diff --git a/src/PVE/Tools.pm b/src/PVE/Tools.pm
> index 4b445ea..bda236a 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/Tools.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/Tools.pm
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ template_replace
> safe_print
> trim
> extract_param
> +extract_sensitive_params
> file_copy
> get_host_arch
> O_PATH
> @@ -807,6 +808,29 @@ sub extract_param {
> return $res;
> }
> =20
can we have some short comment about what this does and when/why it can b=
e useful here
> +sub extract_sensitive_params :prototype($$$) {
> + my ($param, $sensitive_list, $delete_list) =3D @_;
> +
> + my $sensitive;
I know auto vivification and such things exist, but I'd feel more comfort=
able
to set above explicitly to and empty hash {} .
> +
> + my %delete =3D map { $_ =3D> 1 } ($delete_list || [])->@*;
> +
> + # always extract sensitive keys, so they don't get written to the =
www-data readable scfg
not only for scfg anymore, would drop that comment actually completely, t=
hat's rather
something for a method comment (see above)
> + for my $opt (@$sensitive_list) {
> + # First handle deletions as explicitly setting `undef`, afterwards ne=
w values may override
> + # it.
I know this is just copied, but there's no actual reason for setting to u=
ndef vs.
using delete encoded in that comment, it's just merely describing what on=
e sees
when reading the code anyhow..
@Wolfgang, you as original author (pve-storage commit 72385de9e23df) why =
did you
used undef vs. delete?
> + if (exists($delete{$opt})) {
> + $sensitive->{$opt} =3D undef;
> + }
> +
> + if (defined(my $value =3D extract_param($param, $opt))) {
> + $sensitive->{$opt} =3D $value;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return $sensitive;
> +}
> +
> # Note: we use this to wait until vncterm/spiceterm is ready
> sub wait_for_vnc_port {
> my ($port, $family, $timeout) =3D @_;
>=20