From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> 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 8E6389F656 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:29:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7207A2A36B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:29:09 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:29:09 +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 BFBE9428FC; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:29:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <ceb308a2-ff55-26bf-0b6f-d30edf67c0e8@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:29:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>, "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, "aderumier@odiso.com" <aderumier@odiso.com> References: <20230607120357.4177891-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20230607120357.4177891-3-aderumier@odiso.com> <9f4def0e-9a3e-04f0-d08d-97b2317a8438@proxmox.com> <2d733aef667e35882030791a8ce6681eadb3c818.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> <3f2c60e6b7e20283368ac3487287b1d2d9859032.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <3f2c60e6b7e20283368ac3487287b1d2d9859032.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.082 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 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: Re: [PATCH v4 qemu-server 1/1] api2: add check_bridge_access for create/update/clone/restore vm X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 07:29:09 -0000 On 09/06/2023 09:14, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote: > Or Maybe, we should simply warn && remove the netX from the restore config ? (I'm thinking about old backup with older non existing bridge anymore or coming from another cluster, where user couldn't have any permissions) I think the whole UX of this new check can definitively be improved for, at least for restore and clone. Once we expose nicely overriding also network for the original config, we can highlight vnets/briges that either do not exist, or the user has no access to, already as invalid in the web UI. Then the user can override it with one that exists and that they have access too in the UI.