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 320288AAD for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:14:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1BDFC1EB5C for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:14:26 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:14:25 +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 2FFFF44CB8 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:14:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <16268683-f198-11c7-446a-b2bd541fd5ac@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:14:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/107.0 Content-Language: en-GB From: Thomas Lamprecht To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Leo Nunner Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220915115228.117543-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com> <9cd03fec-b052-1f71-97cd-45b4f68c7a62@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <9cd03fec-b052-1f71-97cd-45b4f68c7a62@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL -0.031 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=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 =?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF =?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF =?UTF-8?Q?record=0A=09?=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] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 container] fix #4192: revamp check for systemd version 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 Nov 2022 12:14:26 -0000 Am 16/11/2022 um 13:13 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > actually I did not yet pushed it out and rethought this, while I don't think that > the perm change is problematic w.r.t. backward compat in practice, it seems a bit > odd to argue for disk only, maybe we need to also check for CDROM, as cloudinit > *adds* a cdrom drive, so it may required that too. > > But, to decide that I wanted to check our privilege docs, only to notice that > we do not mention the cloudinit one there at all, not great... > > https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-pveum.html#_privileges > > Please check the dev history to see if Cloudinit is deemed enough to add the CDROM > or if we should add that priv to the check too, then re-send this with updated > commit message, the whitespace fixes and a docs patch. > argh, replied to the wrong patch, please ignore.