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 6D64383408 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:11:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 63EE823017 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:11:29 +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 7E7F923008 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:11:28 +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 55D0E4444E for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:11:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:11:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/95.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fabian Ebner , Oguz Bektas References: <20211202133842.1000372-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <6670482a-986b-d81d-bde1-96d0c8de48ee@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <6670482a-986b-d81d-bde1-96d0c8de48ee@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.736 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 -3.3 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common] fix #3747: download_file_from_url: trim whitespace before comparing checksum 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, 03 Dec 2021 10:11:29 -0000 On 03.12.21 09:03, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 02.12.21 um 14:38 schrieb Oguz Bektas: >> so that we don't get checksum mismatch in case the user accidentally >> copies whitespace in the checksum field. >> > > Isn't this better done in the UI? Or at least upon parameter validation (but we don't do this for any other parameter, or)?. > Yeah, I do not like messing with the checksum in the backend to much, maybe we can enforce the format such that it doesn't allow any whitespace and explicitly errors out for api users that send some. I trimmed for now in the frontend: https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-manager.git;a=commitdiff;h=9e9a3abd0a5eedc76a41f6ebcd719dca72d536b8