[pdm-devel] [PATCH datacenter-manager v3 08/11] api: subscription status: add support for view parameter
Lukas Wagner
l.wagner at proxmox.com
Wed Nov 12 11:26:48 CET 2025
On Wed Nov 12, 2025 at 9:19 AM CET, Shannon Sterz wrote:
> On Tue Nov 11, 2025 at 3:46 PM CET, Michael Köppl wrote:
>> 1 comment inline
>>
>> On Thu Nov 6, 2025 at 2:43 PM CET, Lukas Wagner wrote:
>>> A view allows one to get filtered subset of all resources, based on
>>> filter rules defined in a config file. Views integrate with the
>>> permission system - if a user has permissions on /view/{view-id}, then
>>> these privileges are transitively applied to all resources which are
>>> matched by the rules. All other permission checks are replaced if
>>> requesting data through a view.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner at proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> - make sure to not filter out a remote if it has been explicitly
>>> included
>>>
>>> server/src/api/resources.rs | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/server/src/api/resources.rs b/server/src/api/resources.rs
>>> index 143335fe..2930da8b 100644
>>> --- a/server/src/api/resources.rs
>>> +++ b/server/src/api/resources.rs
>>> @@ -552,6 +552,10 @@ pub async fn get_status(
>>> default: false,
>>> description: "If true, includes subscription information per node (with enough privileges)",
>>> },
>>> + view: {
>>> + schema: VIEW_ID_SCHEMA,
>>> + optional: true,
>>> + },
>>> },
>>> },
>>> returns: {
>>> @@ -566,6 +570,7 @@ pub async fn get_status(
>>> pub async fn get_subscription_status(
>>> max_age: u64,
>>> verbose: bool,
>>> + view: Option<String>,
>>> rpcenv: &mut dyn RpcEnvironment,
>>> ) -> Result<Vec<RemoteSubscriptions>, Error> {
>>> let (remotes_config, _) = pdm_config::remotes::config()?;
>>> @@ -574,9 +579,17 @@ pub async fn get_subscription_status(
>>>
>>> let auth_id = rpcenv.get_auth_id().unwrap().parse()?;
>>> let user_info = CachedUserInfo::new()?;
>>> - let allow_all = user_info
>>> - .check_privs(&auth_id, &["resource"], PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT, false)
>>> - .is_ok();
>>> +
>>> + let allow_all = if let Some(view) = &view {
>>> + user_info.check_privs(&auth_id, &["view", view], PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT, false)?;
>>> + false
>>> + } else {
>>> + user_info
>>> + .check_privs(&auth_id, &["resource"], PRIV_RESOURCE_AUDIT, false)
>>> + .is_ok()
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + let view = views::get_optional_view(view.as_deref())?;
>>>
>>> let check_priv = |remote_name: &str| -> bool {
>>> user_info
>>> @@ -590,35 +603,64 @@ pub async fn get_subscription_status(
>>> };
>>>
>>> for (remote_name, remote) in remotes_config {
>>> - if !allow_all && !check_priv(&remote_name) {
>>> + if let Some(view) = &view {
>>> + if view.can_skip_remote(&remote_name) {
>>> + continue;
>>> + }
>>> + } else if !allow_all && !check_priv(&remote_name) {
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + let view = view.clone();
>>> +
>>> let future = async move {
>>> let (node_status, error) =
>>> match get_subscription_info_for_remote(&remote, max_age).await {
>>> - Ok(node_status) => (Some(node_status), None),
>>> + Ok(mut node_status) => {
>>> + node_status.retain(|node, _| {
>>> + if let Some(view) = &view {
>>> + view.is_node_included(&remote.id, node)
>>> + } else {
>>> + true
>>> + }
>>> + });
>>> + (Some(node_status), None)
>>> + }
>>> Err(error) => (None, Some(error.to_string())),
>>> };
>>>
>>> - let mut state = RemoteSubscriptionState::Unknown;
>>> + let state = if let Some(node_status) = &node_status {
>>> + if let Some(view) = view {
>>> + if error.is_some() && !view.is_remote_explicitly_included(&remote.id) {
>>
>> Can this ever be be true? From the code above, you can never have the
>> case that node_status and error are both Some(...) at the same time, so
>> error.is_some() would always evaluate to false here, unless I'm missing
>> something.
>>
>> I think you'd have to put the check outside of this block.
>>
>> if let Some(view) = &view {
>> if error.is_some() && !view.is_remote_explicitly_included(&remote.id) {
>> return None;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> let state = if let Some(node_status) = &node_status {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>
> i thikn this is right, at least i noted something similar in a previous
> version of this patch series already. thanks for spotting it again!
>
> https://lore.proxmox.com/all/DDVMQ0KGW0IP.50W15XZS8TQ@proxmox.com/
>
Ah, my bad. I remember reading your comment about this patch, but I
think it was overshadowed by some other changes, including the
`is_remote_explicitly_included` thing.
I moved the block as suggested.
Thanks :)
>>> + // Don't leak the existence of failed remotes unless they were explicitly
>>> + // pulled in by a `include remote:<id>` rule.
>>> + return None;
>>> + }
>>> + }
More information about the pdm-devel
mailing list