From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 66B11C660 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 52654376B for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:34:32 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 1E9353760 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:34:31 +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 C2FE140AAB for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:34:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5d405dc1-b8e9-177c-b4a7-9af9f72734c2@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:34:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Matthias Heiserer References: <20220323130111.2552347-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <20220323130111.2552347-2-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <2ec9c9fd-ee83-754b-1206-56577f487dca@proxmox.com> <23048c05-c2bc-19f1-e110-fc8772bc79a7@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <23048c05-c2bc-19f1-e110-fc8772bc79a7@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.589 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -3.086 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 2/3] fix #3939: set default value in domains endpoint 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:35:02 -0000 On 11.04.22 12:20, Matthias Heiserer wrote: > On 11.04.2022 10:12, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 23.03.22 14:01, Matthias Heiserer wrote: >>> Because the default realm is stored in node.cfg, here we have to add >>> it to the returned information. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Heiserer >>> --- >>> =C2=A0 src/api2/access/domain.rs | 11 +++++++++-- >>> =C2=A0 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >> >>> @@ -24,17 +24,19 @@ use pbs_api_types::BasicRealmInfo; >>> =C2=A0 /// Authentication domain/realm index. >>> =C2=A0 fn list_domains(mut rpcenv: &mut dyn RpcEnvironment) -> Result= , Error> { >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 let mut list =3D Vec::new(); >>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 let default_realm =3D node::config()?.0.default_r= ealm; >> >> feels not ideal to pull in the node config here, if we really need to = add a config >> (see my bugzilla reply asking if the requester would be OK with just m= aking the >> realm box stateful), then I'd actually add it in the domain config as = priority >> flag (allow 0 to 100, default 50) which is then used for sorting the r= ealms and >> also for auto-selecting the highest priority + name sorted realm. > If I'm not mistaken the realm selector on the login screen is already s= tateful. > Sorting sounds interesting, but how would we go about the default pam/p= bs auth? They are not in the domains config, so i guess we have to add th= em there. Yes, if the priority would be set the built-in realms would show up in the configuration too. >> >> Same level of complexity in terms of what we need to safe (one new str= uct member), >> but avoids the need to always load+parse an extra config and also more= features we >> can use it for. >> >> Please note also that we'd like to have feature parity for the stuff t= hat exists >> in PVE or PMG too. > Not sure I understand the point on feature parity. You mean that the de= fault realm should be set in the realms view? That whatever we add as feature for PBS, it should also be added to PVE/P= MG, at least if sensible; doesn't have to be in the same series, but it should be plan= ned.