From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
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 053E17465D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  9 Jul 2021 10:33:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E788A21EA5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  9 Jul 2021 10:33:09 +0200 (CEST)
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 6B86821E97
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  9 Jul 2021 10:33:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 39C2940C45;
 Fri,  9 Jul 2021 10:33:09 +0200 (CEST)
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, rhonda@deb.at
References: <20210709072441.8437-1-rhonda@deb.at>
 <20210709072441.8437-2-rhonda@deb.at>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1f1bddca-81c3-816e-6b57-fd6d15bec6d8@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 10:33:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210709072441.8437-2-rhonda@deb.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.535 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [pve6to7.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager 1/1] Only check deb sources.list
 entries
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 08:33:10 -0000

Am 09.07.21 um 09:24 schrieb Rhonda D'Vine:
> The check isn't specific enough, it also catches deb-src entries and
> would give a false impression of security in certain circumstances, or
> lead to false negatives in case you have a deb-src entry for
> buster/updates even though you have bullseye-security in just the next
> line -- something that isn't that uncommon for developers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at>
> ---
>   PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm b/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm
> index fb928a9c..30adcb19 100644
> --- a/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm
> +++ b/PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm
> @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ sub check_security_repo {
>   
>   	    ($line) = split(/#/, $line);
>   
> -	    next if $line !~ m/^deb/; # is case sensitive
> +	    next if $line !~ m/^deb[[:space:]]/; # is case sensitive
>   
>   	    my $suite;
>   
> 

Of course, thank you for the fix!

FWIW, Reviewed-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>

I also noticed that the check is not yet in the stable-6 branch.