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 C32AD1FF16B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:42:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23EBB1A3E4; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:42:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:42:38 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Wolfgang Bumiller Message-ID: <20240829104238.fjo7khn4zgni6ppx@luna.proxmox.com> References: <20240814085712.174810-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20240829081242.rfsd4uq7zyahzxyz@luna.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20220429 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.042 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_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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v4 1/2] fix #5439: allow to reuse existing datastore X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On 29.08.2024 11:17, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 10:12:42AM GMT, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> On 28.08.2024 15:48, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:57:11AM GMT, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> > > [skip] >> > > /// Opens the chunk store with a new process locker. >> > > /// >> > > /// Note that this must be used with care, as it's dangerous to create two instances on the >> > > /// same base path, as closing the underlying ProcessLocker drops all locks from this process >> > > /// on the lockfile (even if separate FDs) >> > > - pub(crate) fn open>( >> > > + pub fn open>( >> > >> > ^ This is not used and should be dropped. >> >> Correct, no idea why I did this. >> >> > > [skip] >> > > + /// Checks permissions and owner of passed path. >> > > + fn check_permissions>(path: T, file_mode: u32) -> Result<(), Error> { >> > > + match nix::sys::stat::stat(path.as_ref()) { >> > > + Ok(stat) => { >> > > + if stat.st_uid != u32::from(pbs_config::backup_user()?.uid) >> > > + || stat.st_gid != u32::from(pbs_config::backup_group()?.gid) >> > > + || stat.st_mode & 0o700 != file_mode >> > >> > Either be exact: >> > st_mode != file_mode >> > >> > or only check the required bits: >> > (st_mode & file_mode) != file_mode >> > >> > (This is one of those rare cases where I'd rather go with the first >> > option. If users modified the permissions via the shell, they can just >> > fix them up, too.) >> > >> > as your current code would for instance fail if the lock file had *more* >> > permissions for the *user* (u+x) but would ignore more permissions for >> > *others* (o+rwx or g+w). >> >> Hmm locally I actually have: >> >> || stat.st_mode & 0o770 < file_mode >> >> with file_mode being 0o640. >> I forgot to add this hunk to the commit :) >> >> Let me know if this is better or if I should revert to your exact >> match (st_mode != file_mode). > >The exact one makes more sense to me. Consider that `0o100 > 0x007` >while `0o007` grants *more* permissions. Ok, looks good! Have submitted a new v5! _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel