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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2848A1C5B for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:02:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 84B2C30182 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:01:54 +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 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:01:53 +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 8112745BA0 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:01:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9789e9af-dc35-3ee5-fb96-148fc0b8b3f5@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:01:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230616073537.17526-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <93b45eda-a000-709e-05b9-5a32dacac5fd@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <93b45eda-a000-709e-05b9-5a32dacac5fd@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.002 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.098 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH common] schema: explicitly set min/max for vmid option 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, 16 Jun 2023 09:02:24 -0000 Am 16.06.23 um 10:23 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 16/06/2023 um 09:35 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >> The associated pve_verify_vmid() method already restricts the value >> to this range, but this wouldn't be visible in the API viewer for >> example [0]. >> >> The verify method is also called by qemu-server's qmextract, so it's >> not possible to just drop the method right now. >> >> [0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/128845/post-564526 >> >> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner >> --- >> src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 6 ++++-- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> > > applied, thanks! > > let's see if we ever used values < 100 as some special thingy somwhere ;-P > (if, those things should probably just switch to another format) Even if, the problem is limited to cases where the format verification wouldn't be done, but the min/max limits would apply. Can that even happen?