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 F1414690E3
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
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 <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: 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 <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 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) {
>