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 A0472690DD for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:23:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8FE5F1F41C for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:23:59 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DC5F71F411 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:23:58 +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 A658746F58 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:23:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:23:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220204142501.1461441-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <50f39747-1685-92d4-ae3e-5cfe5c288776@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <50f39747-1685-92d4-ae3e-5cfe5c288776@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.151 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control/manager v2] fix #3668: improving realm sync 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: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:23:59 -0000 On 3/22/22 14:44, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 22.03.22 07:11, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 04.02.22 15:24, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>> this deprecates the 'full' sync option and replaces it with >>> a 'mode' option, where we add a third one that updates >>> the current users (while retaining their custom set attributes not >>> exisiting in the source) and removing users that don't exist anymore >>> in the source >>> >> I'm not yet 100% sure about the specific mode names, as sync normally means >> 100% sync, I'll see if I find some other tool (rsync?) with similar option naming >> problems. Independent from the specific names, this really needs a docs patch, >> ideally with a table listing the modi as rows and having the various "user added", >> "user removed", "properties added/updated", "properties removed" as columns, for a >> better understanding of the effects.. >> > A thought (train): what we decide with this isn't what gets added/updated, that's > always the same, only what gets removed if vanished on the source, so maybe: > > remove-vanished: < none | user | user-and-properties > > > Or if we can actually also remove either user *or* group then: s/user/entity/ ? > > ps. the web interface should probably do a s/Purge/Purge ACLs/ too; or with that > in mind we could actually drop that do and have: > > remove-vanished: < none | user | user-and-properties | user-and-properties-and-acl > > > And with that, we could go the separate semicolon-endcoded-flag-list like we do for > some CT features (or mount options) IIRC: > > remove-vanished: [];[];[acls] > > I.e., those three flags would replace your new mode + purge like: > > +--------+--------+---------------------+ > | Mode | Purge | -> removed-vanished | > +--------+--------+---------------------+ > | update | 0 | "" (none) | > | sync | 0 | user | > | full | 0 | user;properties | > | update | 1 | acl | > | sync | 1 | acl;user | > | full | 1 | acl;user;properties | > +--------+--------+---------------------+ > > The selector for them could be either three check boxes on one line (similar to the > privilege level radio buttons from CT restore) or even a full blown combobox with all > the options spelled out. > > It's only slightly weird for acl, as there the "remove-vanished" somewhat implies that > we import acl's in the first place, if we really don't want that we could keep > "Purge ACLs" as separate option that is only enabled if "remove-vanished" "user" flag > is set, put IMO not _that_ of a big problem to understand compared to the status quo. > > Does (any of) this make sense to you? yes this sounds sensible, but i agree about the possibly confusing 'remove-vanished' implication for acls. Maybe 'remove-on-vanish' ? this would (semantically) decouple the 'vanished' thing from the 'removed' thing, at least a little bit. in either case the docs would have to be updated anyway (as you already said) aside from that, i think line 4 in your table is not really practical, since it would remove the acls but leave the users ? we could enable the 'acl' checkbox only when the 'users' checkbox is active, similar to what you suggested