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 C92711FF15C for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:42:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 56259F30D; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:42:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:42:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20240910070818.268267-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <68d6639e-a27d-4198-be2e-6a423a78581f@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <68d6639e-a27d-4198-be2e-6a423a78581f@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.016 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #5233: don't require root for some tape operations 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On 11/12/24 21:15, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 10.09.24 um 09:08 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> instead, require 'Tape.Write' on '/tape' path. >> This makes it possible for a TapeAdmin or TapeOperator to >> format/remove/vault tapes, instead of just root@pam. >> >> I opted for the path '/tape' since we don't have a dedicated acl >> structure for single tapes, just '/tape/pool' (which does not apply >> since not all tapes have to have a pool), '/tape/device' (which is >> intended for drives/changers) and '/tape/jobs' (which is for jobs only). >> >> Alternatively we could invent a new scheme for tape media, e.g. >> '/tape/media' for this. > > the path is fine, but why Tape.Write over Tape.Modify? > >> Tape.Modify >> Tape.Modify allows a user to modify the configuration of tape drives, changers and backups. > > vs > >> Tape.Write >> Tape.Write allows a user to write to a tape media. > > The former might be a better fit here as these calls alter not only the tape > content, or? > > Noticed because Hannes' recent patch already switched the move-tape one to > Tape.Modify, > mhmm... not sure why i chose Tape.Write exactly, but IMHO looking at it again, Modify would probably fit better for the 'update_media_status' (also fits better for the move-tape as Hannes rightly noticed) for destroy I'd be inclined to still use Write. While it does update the inventory (it removes it from there), It's basically the inverse of 'format_media' (as in, that inserts it into the inventory) which also uses Write. I'd send a rebased version for using Write for destroy, and Modify for update status if that's fine with you. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel