From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B371FF187
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:58:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 15A1B7B21;
Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:58:43 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 14:58:10 +0200
Message-Id: <D924J9S27KUN.3T32GISEJ9JRV@proxmox.com>
From: "Shannon Sterz" <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
To: "Dominik Csapak" <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, "Proxmox Datacenter Manager
development discussion" <pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, "Dietmar Maurer"
<dietmar@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1-0-g2ecb8770224a-dirty
References: <20250403141806.402974-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
<20250403141806.402974-3-s.sterz@proxmox.com>
<2022147362.1680.1744196508347@webmail.proxmox.com>
<3293442a-0aed-4ab6-a6ee-5a0f8ea6b1e6@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <3293442a-0aed-4ab6-a6ee-5a0f8ea6b1e6@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.018 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: [pdm-devel] [PATCH proxmox 2/4] access-control: add acl api
feature
X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
<pdm-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pdm-devel>,
<mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pdm-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel>,
<mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
<pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pdm-devel" <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Wed Apr 9, 2025 at 1:39 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 4/9/25 13:01, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
>>
>>> +/// Get ACL entries, can be filter by path.
>>> +pub fn read_acl(
>>> + path: Option<String>,
>>> + exact: bool,
>>> + rpcenv: &mut dyn RpcEnvironment,
>>> +) -> Result<Vec<AclListItem>, Error> {
>>> + let auth_id = rpcenv
>>> + .get_auth_id()
>>> + .ok_or_else(|| format_err!("endpoint called without an auth id"))?
>>> + .parse()?;
>>> +
>>> + let top_level_privs = CachedUserInfo::new()?.lookup_privs(&auth_id, &["access", "acl"]);
>>> +
>>> + let filter = if top_level_privs & access_conf().acl_audit_privileges() == 0 {
>>> + Some(auth_id)
>>> + } else {
>>> + None
>>> + };
>>
>> As discussed offline, maybe we can use CachedUserInfo::check_privs here?
>>
>>
>
> maybe something like this for the update case (untested, please verify before using this!):
> (the diff is for pbs, where the code was copied from)
>
> this also includes a reformatted check for the token,non-token, same user checks
> that are IMHO more readable than what we currently have
> with the match, i think it's much more obvious that all cases are handled
>
> ---
> let user_info = CachedUserInfo::new()?;
>
> - let top_level_privs = user_info.lookup_privs(¤t_auth_id, &["access", "acl"]);
> - if top_level_privs & PRIV_PERMISSIONS_MODIFY == 0 {
> + let has_modify_permission = user_info
> + .check_privs(
> + ¤t_auth_id,
> + &["access", "acl"],
> + PRIV_PERMISSIONS_MODIFY,
> + false,
the false here means that partial matches are discounted. i'm not sure
this is correct as at least in pbs and pdm, we do use a partial check as
that is equivalent to the check i ported over.
imo, we'd need to discuss what the proper semantics are here and at
least up until now, we decided for partial semantics.
> + )
> + .is_ok();
> +
> + if !has_modify_permission {
> if group.is_some() {
> bail!("Unprivileged users are not allowed to create group ACL item.");
> }
>
> match &auth_id {
> Some(auth_id) => {
> - if current_auth_id.is_token() {
> - bail!("Unprivileged API tokens can't set ACL items.");
> - } else if !auth_id.is_token() {
> - bail!("Unprivileged users can only set ACL items for API tokens.");
> - } else if auth_id.user() != current_auth_id.user() {
> - bail!("Unprivileged users can only set ACL items for their own API tokens.");
> + let same_user = auth_id.user() == current_auth_id.user();
> + match (current_auth_id.is_token(), auth_id.is_token(), same_user) {
> + (true, _, _) => bail!("Unprivileged API tokens can't set ACL items."),
> + (false, false, _) => {
> + bail!("Unprivileged users can only set ACL items for API tokens.")
> + }
> + (false, true, true) => {
> + // users are always allowed to modify ACLs for their own tokens
> + }
> + (false, true, false) => {
> + bail!("Unprivileged users can only set ACL items for their own API tokens.")
> + }
> }
> }
> None => {
> ---
_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel