From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9F461FF0B0 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 08:18:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1101221656; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 08:18:39 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 08:18:30 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Lukas Wagner" To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , "Lukas Wagner" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v5 19/42] notify: matcher: ensure that field names match SAFE_ID_REGEX X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20261022121608.271515-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20261022121608.271515-20-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792736310861 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.899 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: W2B7V2NTFU36ET75EWTVM45TSBGU65R5 X-Message-ID-Hash: W2B7V2NTFU36ET75EWTVM45TSBGU65R5 X-MailFrom: l.wagner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 4:30 PM CEST, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: > Thanks for adding these. Considering the tests here all pass, I just > quickly ran through some manual tests with pvesh with invalid field > names in various expressions and everything seems to work as expected. > > 1 comment inline that can easily be a follow-up. > > Tested-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl > Reviewed-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl > > On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 2:15 PM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: > > [snip] > >> + match self { >> + FieldMatcher::Exact { field, values } =3D> { >> + if values.is_empty() { >> + return Err(Error::Generic( >> + "field matcher must contain values to match".to= _string(), >> + )); >> + } >> + if !SAFE_ID_REGEX.is_match(field) { >> + return Err(Error::Generic( >> + "field name does not match regex pattern".to_st= ring(), > > nit: would benefit from mentioning the field as well. Something like > "invalid field name {field}" or "field name {field} does not match regex > pattern". I'll adapt the string in a followup patch in another series, I'm changing t= he error type where I have to adapt this line anywhere. Thanks! > >> + )); >> + } >> + } >> + FieldMatcher::Regex { field, .. } =3D> { >> + if !SAFE_ID_REGEX.is_match(field) { >> + return Err(Error::Generic( >> + "field name does not match regex pattern".to_st= ring(), > > nit: same as above > >> + )); >> + } >> } >> } >> > > [snip]