From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <o.bektas@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 929F7882C2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:22:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 895FCA8E3
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:22:23 +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 5FC7BA8CE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:22:22 +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 31CCA46B6C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:22:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:22:11 +0100
Message-Id: <20220105152215.1307583-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.647 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
POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
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. [qemu.pm, accesscontrol.pm, tools.pm, lxc.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] [RFC access-control common container qemu-server 0/4]
#2582: Sys.Root privilege
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: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 15:22:23 -0000
sending this in as RFC, because i think it needs a bit of ironing
out and discussing the quirky bits ;)
i'm not done with pve-manager patch so that'll come with the v1, though API
should work for testing the changes.
it probably makes sense to also add a helper there, since at the moment
we only check if Proxmox.UserName === 'root@pam' or in some cases
specific permissions for storage and so forth, in order to decide
whether to show/enable some GUI elements.
container API already works pretty well. VM API should also work but i haven't
tested this extensively w.r.t. storage and migration.
some questions that popped up in my head:
+ should adding 'Sys.Root' privilege to a user give them all available
privileges on that path? this would make sense as having a
root-equivalent privilege should be already enough (otherwise it doesn't
have much of a point?). since at some places we have things like:
-------
} elsif ($target_vmid) {
$rpcenv->check_vm_perm($authuser, $target_vmid, undef, ['VM.Config.Disk'])
- if $authuser ne 'root@pam';
+ if !$is_root;
-------
where one could theoretically have root-eq privs but not the 'VM.Config.Disk' for the target vm...
+ $authuser could also be an (optional?) parameter for the helper in
PVE::Tools, so that we could check arbitrary users and not only the current
one. also on most of these we already call $rpcenv->get_user() before doing the
check, so we could spare that call inside the helper if we do that
consistently.
+ would it make sense to be able to give 'Sys.Root' on a single node (like on
/nodes/foo instead of the whole cluster)? this seemed like a rabbithole to me
since we'd have to lock down quite a bit of stuff to limit movement from one
cluster member to the other, without any(?) worthwhile benefits? or might make
sense to just allow 'Sys.Root' to be given on '/' (since it should be
equivalent to root@pam anyway)
+ should root@pam have 'Sys.Root' by default? or does it make sense to still
differentiate the "real" root user and the "impersonated" one?
pve-access-control:
Oguz Bektas (1):
add Sys.Root privilege
src/PVE/AccessControl.pm | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
pve-common:
Oguz Bektas (1):
tools: add 'check_for_root' helper
src/PVE/Tools.pm | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
pve-container:
Oguz Bektas (1):
fix #2582: api: use common helper for checking root privileges
src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 5 ++---
src/PVE/LXC.pm | 8 +++++---
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
qemu-server:
Oguz Bektas (1):
api: use common helper for checking root privileges
PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
--
2.30.2