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 F1414690E3 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:23:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DD9B4195EC for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:22:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 A26FF195DC for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:22:49 +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 6356241B56 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:22:49 +0100 (CET) To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, o.bektas@proxmox.com References: <20210222150353.1449090-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <409bc947-8ec6-7fcd-f20f-981d70f5c9cb@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:22:43 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210222150353.1449090-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> 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 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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. [lxc.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container] fix #3313: recover unprivileged bit from old config during pct restore 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: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:23:21 -0000 Am 22.02.21 um 16:03 schrieb Oguz Bektas: > since pct defaults to privileged containers, it restores the container > as privileged when `--unprivileged 1` is not passed. > > instead we should check the old configuration and retrieve it > from there. > > this way, when one creates an unprivileged container on GUI, it will be > still restored as unprivileged via pct (without having to pass > `--unprivileged 1` parameter) > > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > --- > src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm > index 8ce462f..4168a7c 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm > @@ -362,6 +362,10 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ > # 'lxc.idmap' entries. We need to make sure that the extracted contents > # of the container match up with the restored configuration afterwards: > $conf->{lxc} = $orig_conf->{lxc}; > + > + # we also need to make sure the privileged/unprivileged bit is recovered > + # from the old config if the parameter is not passed > + $conf->{unprivileged} = $orig_conf->{unprivileged} if !defined $unprivileged && $orig_conf->{unprivileged}; This is guarded by a if ($is_root && $archive ne '-') { but the unprivileged flag should be recovered for all users or am I missing something? The existing $was_template logic probably shouldn't be guarded by $is_root either... > } > } > if ($storage_only_mode) { >