From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 1D1D9A0E8F for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F0F2E1D3C4 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:07 +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 ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:06 +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 B053747A69 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <8e0e37cd-3ff3-4070-b1e3-b5834d97ec52@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:47:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-AT, en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231107124607.571477-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <40f1858f-2294-4e60-9a93-319a5efdb4be@proxmox.com> From: Lukas Wagner In-Reply-To: <40f1858f-2294-4e60-9a93-319a5efdb4be@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.164 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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 access-control 1/2] acl: allow more nesting for /mapping acl paths X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:47:08 -0000 On 11/10/23 09:18, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 07/11/2023 um 13:46 schrieb Lukas Wagner: >> This will be needed for ACL paths for the notification system, >> which will get separate namespaces for targets and matchers: >> >> /mapping/notification/targets/ >> as well as >> /mapping/notification/matchers/ > > Not that it matters much to this supporting patch, but above should all > use the singular, or? I.e., like "notification" also use "target" and > "matcher". > Yeah, I also was kind of unsure about that, but in the end I used the plural form because that's what I use for the API routes. e.g. /cluster/notifications/targets /cluster/notifications/matchers However, now I see another discrepancy I missed before, the API route also uses 'notifications' in its plural form. So maybe it would make sense to have the ACL tree nodes match that exactlty? E.g. /mapping/notifications/targets I don't have any strong preference for any form, I just think that some consistency with the API would be nice - and changing the API routes would be much more work ;) And regarding the granularity: Yes, maybe that's a bit overkill now. The per-target permissions were kind of important with the 'old' system where we would select a target at the notification call site (e.g. a backup job), but with the new 'pub-sub'-alike system it probably does not matter that much any more. But I don't really have any strong preference here as well. -- - Lukas