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 E71378AA9A for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:04:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D0C161EBF9 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:04:07 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:04:07 +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 292FA44AED for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:04:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:04:06 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Dominik Csapak Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20221021080406.sen2tr3dpcfi3cl4@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> References: <20221020131412.3493343-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20221020131412.3493343-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221020131412.3493343-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.247 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 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. [accesscontrol.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control 3/3] authenticate_user: don't give empty $tfa_challenge to authenticate_2nd_new 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, 21 Oct 2022 08:04:07 -0000 On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Dominik Csapak wrote: > just above, we check & return if $tfa_challenge is set, so there is no > way that it would be set here. To make it clearer that it must be undef > here, just omit it in the call. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > src/PVE/AccessControl.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm b/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm > index d83dee2..ca36db9 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/AccessControl.pm > @@ -746,7 +746,7 @@ sub authenticate_user : prototype($$$$;$) { > > if ($new_format) { > # This is the first factor with an optional immediate 2nd factor for TOTP: > - my $tfa_challenge = authenticate_2nd_new($username, $realm, $otp, $tfa_challenge); > + my $tfa_challenge = authenticate_2nd_new($username, $realm, $otp); I'd prefer to explicitly pass `undef`, as I also prefer to have prototypes on subs which would not allow this ;-) > return wantarray ? ($username, $tfa_challenge) : $username; > } else { > return authenticate_2nd_old($username, $realm, $otp); > -- > 2.30.2