From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.sterz@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 D69FF9B8F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF205283CA
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A47784415C
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <2377ca93-1c8a-cfb5-d82e-11e12b85c4df@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:40:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230626093916.701659-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
 <20230626093916.701659-4-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
 <1d1111f0-7255-1c7a-a15c-eadaebefe257@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d1111f0-7255-1c7a-a15c-eadaebefe257@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.050 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.089 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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 3/4] access: ldap check
 connection on creation and change
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:40:43 -0000

On 26.06.23 14:36, Lukas Wagner wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/26/23 11:39, Stefan Sterz wrote:
>>   macro_rules! DOMAIN_PART_REGEX {
>>       () => {
>> -        r#"("[^"]+"|[^ ,+"/<>;=#][^,+"/<>;=]*[^ ,+"/<>;=]|[^
>> ,+"/<>;=#])"#
>> +        r#"[^\s,\+=]+=(?:"[^"]+"|(?:\\[,\+=]|[^,\+=])+)"#
>>       };
>>   }
>>   
> 
> I wonder, if we validate any change of the LDAP parameters against the
> actual server anyway, is there
> even any value in validating DNs using a regex?
> 

it could be dropped, i just assumed that having it there would help in
cases of obviously wrong dns and would save us the somewhat expensive
round-trip in such cases.

> If the config is manipulated via the API, a malformed DN will be
> rejected by the server, and in case
> the configuration file is edited directly, the regex also does not
> really help that much.