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 D9CEC1FF165 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:29:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA0E91ED2A; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:29:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <c4110fb3-3313-422d-99b5-ca7514405a47@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:28:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Shannon Sterz <s.sterz@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion <pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com> 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> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <D924J9S27KUN.3T32GISEJ9JRV@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.022 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 4/9/25 14:58, 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: >>> >>>> +/// 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. IIUC the PRIV_PERMISSIONS_MODIFY is only a single bit, so partial/not partial makes no difference in this diff here. but yeah sure, if we have multiple privileges that would all allow setting ACL individually, we would have to match with `partial = true` > >> + ) >> + .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