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 1163993865 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DFFD530E40 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:10 +0100 (CET) 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 ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E79CF446F4 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:59:09 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 09:59:08 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Gabriel Goller" To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Proxmox Backup Server development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.16.0-149-g2d8b81f619fc References: <20240201142431.195108-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <52a43bc7-48a6-4bc7-a015-90df676a311e@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <52a43bc7-48a6-4bc7-a015-90df676a311e@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.515 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 SCC_BODY_URI_ONLY 2.799 Very short body with something maybe clickable 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [openid.net, lib.rs, rfc-editor.org, openid.rs] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #5190: api-types: openid acr format regex 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: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 08:59:41 -0000 On Mon Feb 5, 2024 at 4:45 PM CET, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 01/02/2024 um 15:24 schrieb Gabriel Goller: > > [..] > on it's own the change itself looks relatively OK, what I'm missing is > a more direct reference to what the issue was in the report, as while > your example closely matches that, it would be still great to actually > mention this explicitly. In the commit messages or as a comment above the regex? > The other thing is that the reporter writes that it works fine for > Proxmox VE already, so what's the limitation there, does your patch > aligns it to that, and if not it would great to state why you chose > a different approach (which can be fine, but really should be reasoned > about) Hmm AFAIK on pve we don't have any limitation at all, it just has to be a string. It's probably best if I copy the same regex to pve although I don't want to suddenly have user input rejected. The pve regex would get stricter, thus it would be a breaking change. > >=20 > > [0]: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html > > [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller > > --- > > pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs | 3 +++ > > pbs-api-types/src/openid.rs | 5 +++-- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >=20 > > diff --git a/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs b/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs > > index 795ff2a6..2668db3e 100644 > > --- a/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs > > +++ b/pbs-api-types/src/lib.rs > > @@ -178,6 +178,9 @@ const_regex! { > > /// any identifier command line tools work with. > > pub PROXMOX_SAFE_ID_REGEX =3D concat!(r"^", PROXMOX_SAFE_ID_REGEX_= STR!(), r"$"); > > =20 > > + /// Regex that (loosely) matches URIs according to [RFC 2396](http= s://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt) > > + pub URI_REGEX =3D r#"^[^\x00-\x1F\x7F <>#"]*$"#; > > Could be also good to expand on the "loosely" part, maybe also go > for a name like `GENERIC_URI_REGEX`, which might better signal that > this is not what some have with URI (often mistaken as URL) in mind. Yes, fair point.