From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7144A1FF16B for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:52:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3C00634BE0; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:52:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:51:32 +0100 (CET) From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Lauren=C8=9Biu_Leahu-Vl=C4=83ducu?= <l.leahu-vladucu@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <2108731437.5298.1741247492846@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <b8fba9f6-6c83-4846-923f-2f7b93856bcf@proxmox.com> References: <b8fba9f6-6c83-4846-923f-2f7b93856bcf@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev74 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.329 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] Strategy for Active Directory and OpenID Connect groups and usernames with spaces and other special characters 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> > 1. Do we want to allow spaces in groups and/or usernames, or should we > prefer replacement characters (e.g. mapping space(s) to _ or some other > character)? My feeling is that we need to allow all characters - else this will be an endless issue ... > 2. In case we want to allow spaces in groups and/or usernames, we also > have to ask ourselves whether we want to allow other special characters > as well. see above > 3. If we also want to allow using special characters, we have to think > about the encoding we use for user.cfg. Currently, we're not doing any > conversions, meaning that Perl could write the strings to user.cfg as > they are (e.g. as UTF-8), but would read them without any conversions, > treating the text as Latin-1. > > I have already started a discussion on UTF-8 in our config files, so for > more details on how Perl handles encodings, look here: > https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/082d3fe0-9c6c-494d-9ec3-f64645cd7a53@proxmox.com/T/#t I would use url encoding for that. > 4. We also have to think about how we want to handle upgrades after such > a change, especially regarding clusters. I'm specifically talking about > the short period of time when upgrading a cluster to a new version, > where not all nodes are on the same version at the same time (e.g. for a > few minutes). A possibility would be to already implement the changes as > part of PVE 8.4, meaning that the code could handle it but we would > disable it by default, while making it available beginning with PVE 9.0. yes, something like that. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel