From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16B841FF17E for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:30:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E81B41F737; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:31:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:31:25 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Lukas Wagner Message-ID: References: <20251029144902.446852-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20251029144902.446852-11-l.wagner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251029144902.446852-11-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1761823871610 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.077 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 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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. [resources.rs, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager 10/13] api: subscription status: add support for view-filter parameter X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Cc: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 03:48:59PM +0100, Lukas Wagner wrote: > A view filter allows one to get filtered subset of all resources, based > on filter rules defined in a config file. View filters integrate with > the permission system - if a user has permissions on > /view/{view-filter-id}, then these privileges are transitively applied > to all resources which are matched by the rules. All other permission > checks are replaced if requesting data through a view filter. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner > --- > server/src/api/resources.rs | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/server/src/api/resources.rs b/server/src/api/resources.rs > index 61960295..89b84c3c 100644 > --- a/server/src/api/resources.rs > +++ b/server/src/api/resources.rs > @@ -546,6 +546,10 @@ pub async fn get_status( > default: false, > description: "If true, includes subscription information per node (with enough privileges)", > }, > + "view-filter": { > + schema: VIEW_FILTER_ID_SCHEMA, > + optional: true, > + }, > }, > }, > returns: { > @@ -560,6 +564,7 @@ pub async fn get_status( > pub async fn get_subscription_status( > max_age: u64, > verbose: bool, > + view_filter: Option, > rpcenv: &mut dyn RpcEnvironment, > ) -> Result, Error> { > let (remotes_config, _) = pdm_config::remotes::config()?; > @@ -572,6 +577,14 @@ pub async fn get_subscription_status( > .check_privs(&auth_id, &["resources"], PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT, false) > .is_ok(); ^ view_filter being Some could cause the above check_privs to be skipped and just assume `allow_all=false`. Even if the code bellow re-checks `view_filter.is_some()` before using `allow_all`, we can still skip over the priv check. > > + if let Some(view_filter) = &view_filter { > + user_info.check_privs(&auth_id, &["view", view_filter], PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT, false)?; > + } > + > + let view_filter = view_filter > + .map(|filter_name| views::view_filter::get_view_filter(&filter_name)) > + .transpose()?; > + > let check_priv = |remote_name: &str| -> bool { > user_info > .check_privs( > @@ -584,35 +597,62 @@ pub async fn get_subscription_status( > }; > > for (remote_name, remote) in remotes_config { > - if !allow_all && !check_priv(&remote_name) { > + if let Some(filter) = &view_filter { > + if filter.can_skip_remote(&remote_name) { > + continue; > + } > + } else if !allow_all && !check_priv(&remote_name) { > continue; > } > > + let view_filter_clone = view_filter.clone(); > + > let future = async move { > let (node_status, error) = > match get_subscription_info_for_remote(&remote, max_age).await { > - Ok(node_status) => (Some(node_status), None), > + Ok(mut node_status) => { > + node_status.retain(|node, _| { > + if let Some(filter) = &view_filter_clone { > + filter.is_node_included(&remote.id, node) > + } else { > + true > + } > + }); > + (Some(node_status), None) > + } > Err(error) => (None, Some(error.to_string())), > }; > > - let mut state = RemoteSubscriptionState::Unknown; > + let state = if let Some(node_status) = &node_status { > + if error.is_some() { > + // Don't leak the existence of failed remotes, since we cannot apply > + // view-filters here. > + return None; > + } > > - if let Some(node_status) = &node_status { > - state = map_node_subscription_list_to_state(node_status); > - } > + if node_status.is_empty() { > + return None; > + } > > - RemoteSubscriptions { > + map_node_subscription_list_to_state(node_status) > + } else { > + RemoteSubscriptionState::Unknown > + }; > + > + Some(RemoteSubscriptions { > remote: remote_name, > error, > state, > node_status: if verbose { node_status } else { None }, > - } > + }) > }; > > futures.push(future); > } > > - Ok(join_all(futures).await) > + let status = join_all(futures).await.into_iter().flatten().collect(); > + > + Ok(status) > } > > // FIXME: make timeframe and count parameters? > -- > 2.47.3 > > > > _______________________________________________ > pdm-devel mailing list > pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel > > _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel