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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 967EF92096
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:23:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 800573D2BD
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:23:18 +0100 (CET)
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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:23:17 +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 91FB742E8F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:23:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5eac4dfc-7228-40d6-8d9e-6fa407e67c3d@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:23:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Markus Frank <m.frank@proxmox.com>
References: <20231108085254.53574-1-m.frank@proxmox.com>
 <20231108085254.53574-6-m.frank@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231108085254.53574-6-m.frank@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.073 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server v8 5/7] Permission check for
 virtiofs directory access
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: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:23:18 -0000

I feel like this patch should be squashed into the last one, because the
checks are an essential part of the feature and they always should be
applied together anyways.

Am 08.11.23 um 09:52 schrieb Markus Frank:
> +my sub check_vm_create_dir_perm {
> +    my ($rpcenv, $authuser, $vmid, $pool, $param) = @_;
> +
> +    return 1 if $authuser eq 'root@pam';
> +
> +    foreach my $opt (keys %{$param}) {

Style nit: please use "for"

Looks good to me otherwise :)