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 AFC8E1FF143 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2026 10:51:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 928C74F62; Sat, 11 Apr 2026 10:52:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: c.ebner@proxmox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 11/27] api: config: check sync owner has access to en-/decryption keys Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 10:02:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20260411085154.1961287-5-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260410165454.1578501-12-c.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20260411085154.1961287-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1775897454957 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.002 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. [sync.rs] Message-ID-Hash: DWC74NEY5SPC73SIPLAVLUK2YVXSYTA2 X-Message-ID-Hash: DWC74NEY5SPC73SIPLAVLUK2YVXSYTA2 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 10.04.26 um 18:54 schrieb Christian Ebner: > diff --git a/src/api2/config/sync.rs b/src/api2/config/sync.rs > @@ -62,6 +62,16 @@ fn is_correct_owner(auth_id: &Authid, job: &SyncJobConfig) -> bool { > > +fn sync_user_can_access_optional_key(key_id: Option<&str>, owner: &Authid) -> Result<(), Error> { > + if let Some(key_id) = key_id { > + if crate::server::sync::check_privs_and_load_key_config(key_id, owner, false).is_err() { > + bail!("no such key or cannot access key '{key_id}'"); > + } > + } > + Ok(()) > +} For push direction, the call passes fail_on_archived=false, meaning an archived key is accepted as active_encryption_key at job creation/update time. The push runtime (PushParameters::new) does pass fail_on_archived=true, so the job would fail when actually executed, but the error only shows up then - not when the admin edits the config. should the push path use fail_on_archived=true here too?