From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76EFE6297F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:11:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6DDE823E0A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:11:47 +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 id DF96D23DFF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:11:46 +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 A1E534632E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:11:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <0ca7fc2e-a614-6e43-91ff-7f85f7922251@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:11:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20220113100831.34113-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20220113100831.34113-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220113100831.34113-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.131 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC v10 qemu-server 6/7] api: support VM disk
 import
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:11:47 -0000

Am 13.01.22 um 11:08 schrieb Fabian Ebner:
> @@ -89,6 +90,10 @@ my $check_storage_access = sub {
>  	} else {
>  	    PVE::Storage::check_volume_access($rpcenv, $authuser, $storecfg, $vmid, $volid);
>  	}
> +
> +	if (my $source_image = $drive->{'import-from'}) {
> +	    PVE::Storage::check_volume_access($rpcenv, $authuser, $storecfg, $vmid, $source_image);
> +	}
>      });
>  

AFAICT, if $vmid doesn't match the one from the volume, the check
requires Datastore.Allocate privileges on the storage, which might be a
bit much for many scenarios. Should the check rather be something like

if ($ownerid) {
    # check VM.Clone for owner VM
    # Note that v11 will use clone_disk() for such disks
} else {
    # PVE::Storage::check_volume_access
}

?