On July 30, 2025 4:20 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 30.07.25 um 3:11 PM schrieb Fabian Grünbichler:
>> On July 18, 2025 5:03 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>> The check_volume_access() method is for checking read access to a
>>> volume. Users should be able to list the images, e.g. to check backup
>>> health via monitoring like reported in #5492 comment 3, with just an
>>> audit privilege.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.eb...@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/PVE/API2/Storage/Content.pm | 6 ------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Content.pm
>>> b/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Content.pm
>>> index 1fe7303..c1f9a1f 100644
>>> --- a/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Content.pm
>>> +++ b/src/PVE/API2/Storage/Content.pm
>>> @@ -154,12 +154,6 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
>>>
>>> my $res = [];
>>> foreach my $item (@$vollist) {
>>> - eval {
>>> - PVE::Storage::check_volume_access(
>>> - $rpcenv, $authuser, $cfg, undef, $item->{volid},
>>> - );
>>> - };
>>> - next if $@;
>>
>> the data here also contains things like the notes content for that
>> volume, which might be sensitive..
>>
>> should we maybe limit the returned information if there is no volume
>> access? e.g., just return volid, format, type, owner, and size
>> information?
>
> Good catch! But should information like 'verification', 'protected',
> 'encrypted' really be limited as well (maybe mapping a fingerprint to
> just 1 and updating the docs)? The feature request is precisely for
> backup monitoring, where those would be important. 'parent' and 'ctime'
> seem also useful for auditing a storage.
yes, probably we should take a look at all the returned members and make
a list of allowed-for-audit-purposes and drop the rest.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
