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.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
