From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0256A1FF09B for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2026 01:08:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2325B214BE; Mon, 09 Nov 2026 01:08:08 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Fiona Ebner Subject: applied: [PATCH-SERIES storage v2 0/2] api: prune backups: improve permission checks Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2026 01:07:53 +0100 Message-ID: <179418286965.3956036.846392862396269187.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20261105103736.52417-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20261105103736.52417-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1794182881217 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.275 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 5PLWVNERKPO2LUJIAE2NYLYDDXHCWKQ5 X-Message-ID-Hash: 5PLWVNERKPO2LUJIAE2NYLYDDXHCWKQ5 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:35:42 +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Changes in v2: > * Different approach. Do not use check_volume_access() for filtering. > Aligning the permissions between the dry run and active run is more > natural here. > > Align the permission checks for dry run and active run, since that is > natural here. And remove an unnatural restriction for the case where > an explicit guest ID is specified. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/2] api: prune backups: align permission check for dry run and active run https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-storage.git;a=commitdiff;h=7a7647768cd2cdcc473154c997be3b1603b36d25 [2/2] api: prune backups: allow Datastore.Allocate even without VM.Backup https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-storage.git;a=commitdiff;h=34de45f4e0931cbc7dd5aa60882894a9a1b4d135