From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 572611FF13B for ; Wed, 20 May 2026 16:07:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0BA83ADFA; Wed, 20 May 2026 16:07:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 16:07:14 +0200 From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: Thomas Lamprecht Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager] ui: cpu flags: make password managers ignore flag radio buttons Message-ID: References: <20260520124601.520864-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779286020458 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.765 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 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. [lastpass.com,bitwarden.com] Message-ID-Hash: UEGH5257XZVFPPAYUZYX5L236IEVM323 X-Message-ID-Hash: UEGH5257XZVFPPAYUZYX5L236IEVM323 X-MailFrom: a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 03:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 20.05.26 um 14:45 schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > > Password manager extensions scan every new element. The flag > > selector grid creates hundreds of radio buttons through its > > widgetcolumn, causing the extension to peg the CPU while it checks each > > one for autofill. > > > > Mark the radio inputs with autocomplete="off" and the extension-specific > > ignore attributes so they are skipped during the scan. > > > > Signed-off-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton > > --- > > www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > > index ea20108d..f8d4caad 100644 > > --- a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > > +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > > @@ -263,16 +263,19 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMCPUFlagSelector', { > > boxLabelAlign: 'before', > > inputValue: '-', > > isFormField: false, > > + inputAttrTpl: 'autocomplete="off" data-bwignore data-1p-ignore data-lpignore="true"', > > }, > > { > > checked: true, > > inputValue: '=', > > isFormField: false, > > + inputAttrTpl: 'autocomplete="off" data-bwignore data-1p-ignore data-lpignore="true"', > > }, > > { > > boxLabel: '+', > > inputValue: '+', > > isFormField: false, > > + inputAttrTpl: 'autocomplete="off" data-bwignore data-1p-ignore data-lpignore="true"', > > }, > > ], > > }, > > oof, those plugins are not always a blessing... I'll skip this for now, as such > changes can IME have slightly subtle effects, and besides that it would be nice > to report this upstream where these plugins are developed, as IMO they should > cope with that better (not that I expect it to happen soon, but still, if they > don't know, they don't know). > ACK. I agree that this is not ideal, however those attributes are the only officially documented way to actually prevent autocomplete for these PW managers [0][1][2]. I started working on a different approach for the CPU flags list that should allow us to use buffered rendering by making all rows the same height, which would also fix this problem. I am not sure how much sense it would make to report this upstream though. The extensions deliberately ignore the autocomplete attribute because some websites where users expect autocomplete use it to prevent browsers from saving passwords (from a comment by a BitWarden dev [3]). [0] https://developer.1password.com/docs/web/compatible-website-design/#ignore-offers-to-save-or-fill-specific-fields [1] https://support.lastpass.com/s/document-item?language=en_US&bundleId=lastpass&topicId=LastPass%2Fc_lp_prevent_fields_from_being_filled_automatically.html&_LANG=enus [2] https://bitwarden.com/help/releasenotes/#2021-06-29 [3] https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/1469\#issuecomment-754188483 > And if we have to go this route, I'd prefer avoiding some code duplication here > by using defaults, i.e. doing something like: > > diff --git a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > index ea20108da..e2e7c86ac 100644 > --- a/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > +++ b/www/manager6/form/VMCPUFlagSelector.js > @@ -257,22 +257,24 @@ Ext.define('PVE.form.VMCPUFlagSelector', { > //view.checkChange(); > }, > }, > + defaults: { > + isFormField: false, > + inputAttrTpl: > + 'autocomplete="off" data-bwignore data-1p-ignore data-lpignore="true"', > + }, > items: [ > { > boxLabel: '-', > boxLabelAlign: 'before', > inputValue: '-', > - isFormField: false, > }, > { > checked: true, > inputValue: '=', > - isFormField: false, > }, > { > boxLabel: '+', > inputValue: '+', > - isFormField: false, > }, > ], > }, Noted, thanks for the feedback!