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 4B28462B15 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:33:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 421E026223 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:33:21 +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 id 9BE932621A for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:33:20 +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 6646B46308 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:33:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:33:14 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Fabian Ebner , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220113100831.34113-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20220113100831.34113-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <0ca7fc2e-a614-6e43-91ff-7f85f7922251@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <0ca7fc2e-a614-6e43-91ff-7f85f7922251@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1645543702.yy3gk3uhl6.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.187 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:33:21 -0000 On February 22, 2022 1:11 pm, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 13.01.22 um 11:08 schrieb Fabian Ebner: >> @@ -89,6 +90,10 @@ my $check_storage_access =3D sub { >> } else { >> PVE::Storage::check_volume_access($rpcenv, $authuser, $storecfg, $= vmid, $volid); >> } >> + >> + if (my $source_image =3D $drive->{'import-from'}) { >> + PVE::Storage::check_volume_access($rpcenv, $authuser, $storecfg, $= vmid, $source_image); >> + } >> }); >> =20 >=20 > AFAICT, if $vmid doesn't match the one from the volume, the check > requires Datastore.Allocate privileges on the storage, which might be a > bit much for many scenarios. Should the check rather be something like >=20 > if ($ownerid) { > # check VM.Clone for owner VM > # Note that v11 will use clone_disk() for such disks sounds sensible to me - if it's possible to copy the volume (and other=20 stuff) already with that privilege, then re-using that check for the=20 similar functionality here is fine. check_volume_access is like that because it assumes that the caller=20 already checked that changes/access to the guest itself is okay - so if=20 a 'foreign' volume is queried, it requires more permissions since it=20 assumes that assumption doesn't hold. since most queries here will be for 'foreign' volumes, checking that=20 cloning from that owner is okay and then passing in that vmid instead of=20 the target one would probably be best (as that still handles the=20 question of whether accessing the source storage is okay in general),=20 and of course we'd need that fallback anyway in case there is no=20 owner/we don't have clone permissions? > } else { > # PVE::Storage::check_volume_access > } >=20 > ? >=20