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(&current_auth_id, &["access", "acl"]);
>> -    if top_level_privs & PRIV_PERMISSIONS_MODIFY == 0 {
>> +    let has_modify_permission = user_info
>> +        .check_privs(
>> +            &current_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