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 F0E30BA6F
for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D2AD31F17F
for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:40 +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
for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:39 +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 7DAC743E2F
for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:47:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Fiona Ebner ,
Proxmox VE development discussion
References: <20230808091342.637190-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>
<22eba78f-dec2-42ff-9d75-3107aecdd981@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Philipp Hufnagl
In-Reply-To:
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.005 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
HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] fix #474: allow transfer from
container/vms
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: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:47:41 -0000
On 8/10/23 09:16, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> But it should. After all, the operation is modifying the original pool,
> so the user better have an appropriate permission to do so.
> Currently, Permissions.Modify|VM.Allocate on the VM and Pool.Allocate on
> the target pool would be enough to "steal" the guest, no permissions
> required on the original pool at all. IMHO, the user really should have
> a Pool.Allocate on the original pool as well.
You are right! It would be possible to "steal" a VM in a way that it was
not before!
Thank you for finding this! Will fix!
> Since I noticed it in v3: we usually use "api:" and "ui:" as prefixes
> rather than "backend:" and "frontend:". Would be nice if you could use
> them too for consistency.
Ok. Good to know. I will do that. Thanks