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 [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D3231FF164
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 12:29:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C3431EDA0;
Fri, 11 Apr 2025 12:29:19 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 12:29:16 +0200
Message-Id: <D93QMCLHVQJ0.20JKBLOMR1LW8@proxmox.com>
From: "Shannon Sterz" <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
To: "Shannon Sterz" <s.sterz@proxmox.com>, "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>
<D924J9S27KUN.3T32GISEJ9JRV@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <D924J9S27KUN.3T32GISEJ9JRV@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 2:58 PM CEST, Shannon Sterz wrote:
> On Wed Apr 9, 2025 at 1:39 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> On 4/9/25 13:01, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
>> 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,
>> + )
>> + .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 => {
>> ---
had another think about this, i'd tend towards something like the below.
the match statement is a nice idea, but it couples together things that
aren't really related. for example, why pull in the
`current_auth_id.is_token()` check, but not the `group.is_some()` check?
having match statements with tuples like this is making the code more
complex. imo, this is simpler:
```rs
let unprivileged_user = CachedUserInfo::new()?
.check_privs(
¤t_auth_id,
&["access", "acl"],
access_conf.acl_modify_privileges(),
access_conf.allow_partial_permission_match(),
)
.is_err();
if unprivileged_user {
if group.is_some() {
bail!("Unprivileged users are not allowed to create group ACL item.");
}
let auth_id = auth_id.as_ref().ok_or_else(|| {
format_err!("Unprivileged user needs to provide auth_id to update ACL item.")
})?;
if current_auth_id.is_token() {
bail!("Unprivileged API tokens can't set ACL items.");
}
if !auth_id.is_token() {
bail!("Unprivileged users can only set ACL items for API tokens.");
}
if current_auth_id != *auth_id {
bail!("Unprivileged users can only set ACL items for their own API tokens.");
}
}
```
what do you think?
_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel