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 D811574D18
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:15:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C531529EB6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:15:18 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B6C0A29EA6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:15:17 +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 877B646649
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:15:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <80dd1c9f-75c8-9010-9267-8b3191f09e0a@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:15:08 +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: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210622142824.18773-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
 <5f4ba4d0-8092-0096-5b10-7f02d50fc865@proxmox.com>
 <20210622171022.23690ff6@rosa.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210622171022.23690ff6@rosa.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.693 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. [plugin.pm, pbsplugin.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] run_command: untaint end of buffer
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, 22 Jun 2021 15:15:48 -0000

On 22.06.21 17:10, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> I had a patch for untainting the individual values in
> PVE::Storage::Plugin::volume_size_info but then went with this patch,

I'd rather have that patch, especially for back-porting to stable.
I mean, else we can probably just turn of the taint mode completely, what's the
point then.

> since I expect the issue of output not ending in newline or being longer
> than 4k to linger in a few places in our code.
> 
> For the volume_size_info calls of our storage plugins - a quick check says
> only PBSPlugin.pm and Plugin.pm could cause this issue 

can we patch it there then too?