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 3B9609AAB5 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:31:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 237CB362C5 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:31:12 +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 ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:31:11 +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 2493943EA2 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:31:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:31:10 +0100 (CET) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <1891271304.4121.1700235070421@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20231116153128.788593-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20231116153128.788593-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev54 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.066 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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] [PATCH access-control 1/2] allow up to three levels of pool nesting 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: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:31:12 -0000 > Wolfgang Bumiller hat am 17.11.2023 11:00 CET ge= schrieben: >=20 > =20 > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 04:31:25PM +0100, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > > with ACLs being inherited along the pool hierarchy. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler > > --- > > src/PVE/AccessControl.pm | 10 ++++++++-- > > src/test/perm-test6.pl | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > src/test/test6.cfg | 5 +++++ > > 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >=20 > > diff --git a/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm b/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm > > index 9600e59..d9ae611 100644 > > --- a/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm > > +++ b/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm > > @@ -1264,7 +1264,7 @@ sub check_path { > > =09|/nodes > > =09|/nodes/[[:alnum:]\.\-\_]+ > > =09|/pool > > -=09|/pool/[[:alnum:]\.\-\_]+ > > +=09|/pool/(:?[[:alnum:]\.\-\_]+\/?)+ >=20 > Should we incorporate the 3 level limit here? > eg. [chars]+(?:/[chars]+){0,2} > Although regex would differ from the one used below (although it could > use the same with only the `{0,2}` bit removed...). well, there is no harm in accepting a sub-ACL path that has no effect. we u= sually have the opposite issue (forgetting to add/extending the entries her= e), but I also don't mind adding it here and a reminder comment below where= the limit is enforced for the config/parameter values. =20 > > =09|/sdn > > =09|/sdn/controllers > > =09|/sdn/controllers/[[:alnum:]\_\-]+