[pve-devel] [PATCH common v2] fix #4778: fix boolean type check for json parameters over the api

[pve-devel] [PATCH common v2] fix #4778: fix boolean type check for json parameters over the api

[Dominik Csapak]

if a real json boolean is sent via the api, $value is a
JSON::PP::Boolean here instead of a string/scalar

so we should validate that too

the $value itself can be used normally in conditions like
----
if ($value) {
----

if the value is stringified, the result is either '1' or '0' so even if
we have some explicit checks like that it should not make a problem

Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
---
change from v1:
* put check inside the 'if ref' condition since that will be
  'JSON::PP::Boolean' after decoding

* added more info to commit message

 src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm
index 85d47f2..60b02cb 100644
--- a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm
+++ b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ use Devel::Cycle -quiet; # todo: remove?
 use PVE::Tools qw(split_list $IPV6RE $IPV4RE);
 use PVE::Exception qw(raise);
 use HTTP::Status qw(:constants);
+use JSON;
 use Net::IP qw(:PROC);
 use Data::Dumper;
 
@@ -1040,6 +1041,9 @@ sub check_type {
 	    return 1;
 	} else {
 	    if ($vt) {
+		if ($type eq 'boolean' && JSON::is_bool($value)) {
+		    return 1;
+		}
 		add_error($errors, $path, "type check ('$type') failed - got $vt");
 		return undef;
 	    } else {
-- 
2.30.2

[pve-devel] applied: [PATCH common v2] fix #4778: fix boolean type check for json parameters over the api

[Wolfgang Bumiller]

applied, thanks

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> if a real json boolean is sent via the api, $value is a
> JSON::PP::Boolean here instead of a string/scalar
> 
> so we should validate that too
> 
> the $value itself can be used normally in conditions like
> ----
> if ($value) {
> ----
> 
> if the value is stringified, the result is either '1' or '0' so even if
> we have some explicit checks like that it should not make a problem

I guess that shouldn't be surprising...