From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <g.goller@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE9B91551
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:55:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 520305248
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:55:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:54:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 925F8481A1
for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:54:58 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:54:57 +0100
Message-Id: <CZ4UPXW7I2I8.1EDVDG9R7VOQT@proxmox.com>
Cc: <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
From: "Gabriel Goller" <g.goller@proxmox.com>
To: "Stoiko Ivanov" <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.16.0-149-g2d8b81f619fc
References: <20240214091503.16979-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<20240214125537.5af34979@rosa.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240214125537.5af34979@rosa.proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.103 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [utils.pm, proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH] utils: cleanup username/userid regex and
verify
X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion
<pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:55:30 -0000
Thanks for the review!
On Wed Feb 14, 2024 at 12:55 PM CET, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/PMG/Utils.pm b/src/PMG/Utils.pm
> > index 12b3ed5..8f7d438 100644
> > --- a/src/PMG/Utils.pm
> > +++ b/src/PMG/Utils.pm
> > @@ -72,13 +72,12 @@ PVE::JSONSchema::register_standard_option('pmg-endt=
ime', {
> > optional =3D> 1,
> > });
> > =20
> > -PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('pmg-userid', \&verify_username);
> why deregister the format here? (verify_username does a bit more than a
> regex match - and reusing the same verification we use in the auth-code
> also in the parts where the API comes in helps in not getting even more
> matches-almost-the-same-regexes matching auth-data) - Currently I'd rathe=
r
> aim to reduce those and if possible unify PMG::UserConfig::verify_entry
> with verify_username here as far as possible - see also:
> https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/2023-March/002381.html
> and Fabian's follow-up to it.
Right, yeah. I readded the register_format call...
Hmm how would you unify verify_entry with verify_username though? It=20
seems to me that verify_entry just splits the username from the userid=20
(if needed) then checks if the username is in the userid (which we=20
could also check in verify_username) and then calls verify_username?
> > sub verify_username {
> > my ($username, $noerr) =3D @_;
> > =20
> > $username =3D '' if !$username;
> > my $len =3D length($username);
> > - if ($len < 3) {
> > + if ($len < 1) {
> this "username" here is actually the one with the realm...
> e.g. root@pam vs. root - so limiting the length to 1 is too little
> restrictive - probably at least renaming the variable name to user_id
> might help in reducing confusion..
Missed this :(
How about I use a min length of 5 here?=20
shortest realm (pam/pmg) + @ + shortest username =3D 5