From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 63F9C734B5
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 07:46:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5123A255D9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 07:45:55 +0200 (CEST)
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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B7125255CA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 07:45:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 864FC40D7F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 07:45:54 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <6e61cf61-8c16-0ac1-0b5e-7191202d3e37@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 07:45:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/90.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
References: <20210705185150.889830-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210705185150.889830-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.515 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
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)
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. [cifsplugin.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] cifs: fix adding storage without
username in the GUI
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, 06 Jul 2021 05:46:25 -0000
On 05.07.21 20:51, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> Currently when trying to add a CIFS storage, without providing a
> username and passwort it fails while trying to mount the share, due to
> the provided 'username=' parameter (w/o actual username).
>
> I think the issue was introduced in
> 72385de9e23df9f8e438d74ff783a8075f8d1560
> with the extracting of sensitive parameters we (rightly) switched to a
> definedness check instead of one for truthyness - but an empty
> username/password is defined.
so it either did not switch "rightly" over or you switched it right back by mistake..
>
> Signed-off-by: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm
> index 9d69b01..f8e173d 100644
> --- a/PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm
> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ sub check_config {
> sub on_add_hook {
> my ($class, $storeid, $scfg, %param) = @_;
>
> - if (defined($param{password})) {
> + if (defined($param{password}) && $param{password}) {
defined && truthiness check of the same variable is effectively just the truthiness
check, as there can never be the case where `$param{password}` would evaluate to true
but `defined($param{password}) would not.
So this makes it again wrong, as it also skips values like "0".
If, you'd need to check the length($param{password}) == 0, but I do not really see
the point here, that would be normally the job of the API and a result should be
a parameter exception.
> cifs_set_credentials($param{password}, $storeid);
> if (!exists($scfg->{username})) {
> warn "ignoring password parameter\n";
> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ sub on_update_hook {
>
> return if !exists($param{password});
>
> - if (defined($param{password})) {
> + if (defined($param{password}) && $param{password}) {
same here, you effectively transformed it back to `if ($param{password}) {`
> cifs_set_credentials($param{password}, $storeid);
> if (!exists($scfg->{username})) {
> warn "ignoring password parameter\n";
>
The backend wasn't really the problem here, the front end sent empty strings
when it should not, so I replaced your patch with the following in manage:
----8<----
diff --git a/www/manager6/storage/CIFSEdit.js b/www/manager6/storage/CIFSEdit.js
index 3992c477..71415401 100644
--- a/www/manager6/storage/CIFSEdit.js
+++ b/www/manager6/storage/CIFSEdit.js
@@ -120,6 +120,19 @@ Ext.define('PVE.storage.CIFSInputPanel', {
onlineHelp: 'storage_cifs',
+ onGetValues: function(values) {
+ let me = this;
+
+ if (values.password?.length === 0) {
+ delete values.password;
+ }
+ if (values.username?.length === 0) {
+ delete values.username;
+ }
+
+ return me.callParent([values]);
+ },
+
initComponent: function() {
var me = this;