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 D2A6E1FF15C for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 13:44:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D013A831; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 13:45:11 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 13:45:08 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Shan Shaji" To: "Stefan Hanreich" , "Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20251014150358.553238-1-s.shaji@proxmox.com> <20251014150358.553238-3-s.shaji@proxmox.com> <52b7cfb5-83bf-4717-b93d-14f5e013aa99@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <52b7cfb5-83bf-4717-b93d-14f5e013aa99@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1760701504984 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.115 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 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 datacenter-manager 2/3] fix #6901: api: add explicit permission check for vnets list X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" On Wed Oct 15, 2025 at 5:20 PM CEST, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > On 10/14/25 5:03 PM, Shan Shaji wrote: >> When a non-root user tried to access the EVPN section, the API was >> throwing "403: permission check failed" error. To fix this, add >> explicit permission check for the `/vnets` endpoint. >> >> Now every authenticated user can access the endpoint however, the user >> needs to have at least `Resource.Audit` permission under `/resource`. >> Only the vnets from remotes which the user has `Resource.Audit` >> privilege on `/remote/{remote_name}` will be included in the returned >> list. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shan Shaji >> --- >> server/src/api/sdn/vnets.rs | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/server/src/api/sdn/vnets.rs b/server/src/api/sdn/vnets.rs >> index a8092cf..a2dfdb4 100644 >> --- a/server/src/api/sdn/vnets.rs >> +++ b/server/src/api/sdn/vnets.rs >> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ >> +use core::option::Option::Some; > > unneeded import? Thanks for catching that. Will send and updated patch. >> use std::collections::HashSet; >> >> use anyhow::{format_err, Error}; >> @@ -5,10 +6,11 @@ use pbs_api_types::REMOTE_ID_SCHEMA; >> use pdm_api_types::{ >> remotes::RemoteType, >> sdn::{CreateVnetRemote, ListVnet, SDN_ID_SCHEMA, VXLAN_ID_SCHEMA}, >> - Authid, >> + Authid, PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT, >> }; >> +use proxmox_access_control::CachedUserInfo; >> use proxmox_rest_server::WorkerTask; >> -use proxmox_router::{Router, RpcEnvironment}; >> +use proxmox_router::{http_bail, Permission, Router, RpcEnvironment}; >> use proxmox_schema::api; >> use pve_api_types::{CreateVnet, SdnVnetType}; >> >> @@ -52,16 +54,37 @@ pub const ROUTER: Router = Router::new() >> type: ListVnet, >> }, >> }, >> + access: { >> + permission: &Permission::Anybody, >> + description: "The user needs to have at least the `Resource.Audit` privilege under `/resource`. >> + Only vnets from remotes for which the user has `Resource.Audit` on `/remote/{remote_name}` >> + will be included in the returned list." >> + } >> )] >> /// Query VNets of PVE remotes with optional filtering options >> async fn list_vnets( >> pending: Option, >> running: Option, >> remotes: Option>, >> + rpcenv: &mut dyn RpcEnvironment, >> ) -> Result, Error> { >> + let user_info = CachedUserInfo::new()?; >> + >> + let auth_id: Authid = rpcenv >> + .get_auth_id() >> + .ok_or_else(|| format_err!("no authid available"))? >> + .parse()?; >> + >> + if !user_info.any_privs_below(&auth_id, &["resource"], PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT)? { >> + http_bail!(FORBIDDEN, "user has no access to resources"); > > we use UNAUTHORIZED instead of FORBIDDEN in other places, so imo would > be better to do that here too - same for the other 2 patches as well. > >> + } >> + >> let (remote_config, _) = pdm_config::remotes::config()?; >> + let authorized_remotes = remote_config.into_iter().filter(|(remote_name, _)| { >> + user_info.lookup_privs(&auth_id, &["resource", &remote_name]) & PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT != 0 >> + }); >> >> - let filtered_remotes = remote_config.into_iter().filter_map(|(_, remote)| { >> + let filtered_remotes = authorized_remotes.filter_map(|(_, remote)| { >> if remote.ty == RemoteType::Pve >> && remotes >> .as_ref() _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel