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 5F77993907
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Jan 2023 14:53:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 42358395B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Jan 2023 14:53:43 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Jan 2023 14:53:42 +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 E97E9440F2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Jan 2023 14:53:41 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <fb1d7660-8c05-1a67-d353-ba8ccc566636@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 14:53:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/109.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>, Leo Nunner <l.nunner@proxmox.com>
References: <20230102160438.180285-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com>
 <20230105134148.34ugmaorbb75eurj@casey.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230105134148.34ugmaorbb75eurj@casey.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.434 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           -2.939 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 storage docs] Allow overrides for default
 directories
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: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:53:43 -0000

Am 05/01/2023 um 14:41 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
> Actually, I just realized that these are actually *relative* paths

yeah that's the idea, relative paths from the storage MP.

> written "as absolute" paths, and if not, the error will now actually say
> that it is not an absolute path as well.

cosmetic, but yeah. What I rather find odd is the separation format, why
don't we use the quoted string format that the maintenance stuff in PBS
added?

> 
> Also the docs say absolute paths, but they are not.
> 
> So please add a followup which drops the use of `verify_path` (rather,
> just allow all values or perhaps forbid it containing '..' (without even
> bothering checking for slashes around).