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 C022A6EC01 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 18:31:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B65AB1340A for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 18:31:34 +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 id A5B97133FD for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 18:31:30 +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 6FE394394D for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 18:31:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 18:31:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20210713080917.1546780-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210713080917.1546780-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.998 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 -1.305 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. [openid.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control] fix #3513: pass configured proxy to OpenID 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: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 16:31:34 -0000 On 13/07/2021 10:09, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler > --- > seemed like the easiest way to fix this - but we could also change the > proxmox-openid-rs API to take the proxy as parameter.. > seems OK in general, but do we only want to set it in case it actually has a value? Not sure if non-existing and existing but empty makes any difference here - e.g., a behavior that one could possibly imagine is that it would override another source/default for a proxy to force no-proxy... Mostly just asking if you thought about that, it's probably just a very vague and theoretical issue.. > src/PVE/API2/OpenId.pm | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/OpenId.pm b/src/PVE/API2/OpenId.pm > index 22423ba..9080865 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/API2/OpenId.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/API2/OpenId.pm > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > code => sub { > my ($param) = @_; > > + my $dcconf = PVE::Cluster::cfs_read_file('datacenter.cfg'); > + local $ENV{all_proxy} = $dcconf->{http_proxy}; > + > my $realm = extract_param($param, 'realm'); > my $redirect_url = extract_param($param, 'redirect-url'); > > @@ -149,6 +152,9 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > > my $res; > eval { > + my $dcconf = PVE::Cluster::cfs_read_file('datacenter.cfg'); > + local $ENV{all_proxy} = $dcconf->{http_proxy}; > + > my ($realm, $private_auth_state) = PVE::RS::OpenId::verify_public_auth_state( > $openid_state_path, $param->{'state'}); > >