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 E5AA98824 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:52:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C247D1C239 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:51:30 +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 09:51:30 +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 07BAF44598 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:51:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:51:22 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20221115130248.1007325-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20221115130248.1007325-5-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <1668524410.yomu90q6hb.astroid@yuna.none> <895c5e1e-4de0-19fe-91a0-f604cc451be8@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <895c5e1e-4de0-19fe-91a0-f604cc451be8@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1668588587.0read3z40q.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL 0.139 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?=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 record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH cluster v10 4/5] datacenter.cfg: add tag rights control to the datacenter config 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 08:52:00 -0000 On November 16, 2022 9:47 am, Dominik Csapak wrote: > most of the points are clear and ok for me, but > [snip] >>> + format =3D> $user_tag_privs_format, >>> + }, >>> + 'privileged-tags' =3D> { >>> + optional =3D> 1, >>> + type =3D> 'string', >>> + description =3D> "A list of tags that require a `Sys.Modify` on '= /') to set and delete. " >>> + ."Tags set here that are also in 'user-tag-access' also require `Sys= .Modify`.", >>> + pattern =3D> "(?:${PVE::JSONSchema::PVE_TAG_RE};)*${PVE::JSONSche= ma::PVE_TAG_RE}", >>> + typetext =3D> "[;...]", >>=20 >> stray 'a' and ')' in first sentence. >>=20 >> I am not sure the second sentence is necessary, or rather, wouldn't it b= e better >> to make the two lists mutually exclusive? e.g., by removing privileged t= ags from >> the other list? >=20 > i don't really want to auto remove stuff from one option when set on anot= her. > maybe it'd make more sense if we don't allow setting and admin tag when > it's already set in the 'user-allow-list' and vice versa? then > there cannot be a situation where a tag is in both lists at the same time= ? forbidding it on the API level (and maybe, to catch bugs, when writing the config) is only part of it though - such duplicates would need to be filter= ed out when parsing as well, else they can sneak in via a manual config file e= dit. but yeah, that would work as well I think.