From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82B881FF13A for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2026 13:38:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 26B3016B44; Wed, 24 Jun 2026 13:38:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4fcddd28-704f-446f-bdf2-6b77afc0e6ad@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 13:38:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-acme v2 2/2] fix #5978: pem parser: relax parsing of chain entries: To: Thomas Ellmenreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260617124251.89036-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <20260617124251.89036-3-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20260617124251.89036-3-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782301093025 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: UQYJOY4SPA4RHBCOTHIDQVWDNOOQJRZC X-Message-ID-Hash: UQYJOY4SPA4RHBCOTHIDQVWDNOOQJRZC X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 17.06.26 um 14:42 schrieb Thomas Ellmenreich: > Instead of using a custom regex to parse pem chains, now uses > the pve-common Certificate::check_pem function to do so. This > now allows for additional text and whitespace inbetween the > chain entries. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Ellmenreich > --- > src/PVE/ACME.pm | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/ACME.pm b/src/PVE/ACME.pm > index e6fb9c2..4b06817 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/ACME.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/ACME.pm > @@ -530,10 +530,10 @@ sub get_certificate { > if !defined($res); > } > > - if ($res =~ /^(-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----)(.+)(-----END CERTIFICATE-----)$/s) { # untaint > - return $1 . $2 . $3; > - } > - die "Server reply does not look like a PEM encoded certificate\n"; > + my $parsed = eval { PVE::Certificate::check_pem->($res) }; Why the -> ? That's normally how one calls code references or blessed objects, but not "normal" methods. As above will call check_perm without arguments and then try to call the result as code reference with $res as parameter, so this will always fail FWICT. Was this actually tested end to end? Also, this fails with certs that are full chains, so this probably should be: my $parsed = eval { PVE::Certificate::check_pem($res, multiple => 1) }; > + die "Server reply does not look like a PEM encoded certificate: $@\n" Nit: server is not really _that_ telling here, could be also interpreted as some API server part of ours (and yes, that wording is somewhat pre-existing in another error in this method, but still). > + if $@; > + return $parsed; > }; > $self->fatal("POST of '$order->{certificate}' failed - $@", $r) if $@; > return $return;