From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 5DCE672B70 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:46:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4890B11690 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:45:35 +0200 (CEST) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 9E01511682 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:45:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 43A0442B6B for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:45:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:45:25 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210616121646.79435-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210616121646.79435-1-l.stechauner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1623847161.ldx69rhpb4.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.782 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com, pve6to7.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 manager] pve6to7: add check for pool permissions X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:46:05 -0000 On June 16, 2021 2:16 pm, Lorenz Stechauner wrote: > the two checks make sure that: > * no user defined role 'PVEPoolUser' exists > * the user gets a hint for roles only containing Pool.Allocate and > not Pool.Audit >=20 > Signed-off-by: Lorenz Stechauner > --- > changes to v1: > * rebased on master >=20 > PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) >=20 > diff --git a/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm b/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm > index 90f92a55..b391d006 100644 > --- a/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm > +++ b/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ use PVE::API2::LXC; > use PVE::API2::Qemu; > use PVE::API2::Certificates; > =20 > +use PVE::AccessControl; > use PVE::Ceph::Tools; > use PVE::Cluster; > use PVE::Corosync; > @@ -693,6 +694,30 @@ sub check_misc { > =20 > check_backup_retention_settings(); > check_cifs_credential_location(); > + > + log_info("Check custom roles"); > + my $usercfg =3D PVE::Cluster::cfs_read_file("user.cfg"); > + foreach my $role (sort keys %{$usercfg->{roles}}) { > + if (PVE::AccessControl::role_is_special($role)) { > + next; > + } > + > + if ($role eq "PVEPoolUser") { > + # the user created a custom role named PVEPoolUser > + log_fail("Custom role '$role' has a restricted name - a built-in ro= le 'PVEPoolUser' will be available with the upgrade"); > + } else { > + log_pass("Custom role '$role' has no restricted name"); > + } > + > + my $perms =3D $usercfg->{roles}->{$role}; > + if ($perms->{'Pool.Allocate'} && $perms->{'Pool.Audit'}) { > + log_pass("Custom role '$role' contains updated pool permissions"); that does not work for PVE 6.x, where Pool.Audit is not yet a valid=20 privilege, so gets dropped on parsing user.cfg ;) so either we add it as valid privilege (without using it for anything)=20 in a new stable-6 branch, or we switch to lower-level parsing/checks=20 here.. the file format is pretty simple, so the following should=20 probably work for the purposes of the check: read raw file look for lines starting with 'role:' split line on ':' split_list third field do checks like in this patch=20 (split third field is privilege list, second field is role name) obviously, this might warn about some roles that otherwise fail parsing=20 with the real parser (e.g., invalid name), but that isn't really a=20 problem for the purpose that pve6to7 has ;) > + } elsif ($perms->{'Pool.Allocate'}) { > + log_warn("Custom role '$role' contains permission 'Pool.Allocate' -= to ensure same behavior add 'Pool.Audit' to this role after the upgrade"); > + } else { > + log_pass("Custom role '$role' contains no permissions that need to = be updated"); > + } > + } > } > =20 > __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > --=20 > 2.20.1 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel >=20 >=20 >=20