From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <g.goller@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 1163993865
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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: <CYXVF3FS2EA2.2HM8NL2GDNYAK@proxmox.com>
From: "Gabriel Goller" <g.goller@proxmox.com>
To: "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, "Proxmox Backup Server
development discussion" <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
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
<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: 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 <g.goller@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > 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.