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

[Dominik Csapak]

On 6/15/23 11:51, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:32:15AM +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) {
>> ----
>>
>> This worked for most api calls by accident before commit:
>> f398a3d ("proxy request: forward json content type and parameters")
>>
>> since when the call was proxied to pvedaemon or another node, it would
>> get translated to a www-form-urlencoded parameter instead of json
>> and most (if not all) api calls that accept boolean parameters in the
>> body (POST/PUT) are forwarded to pvedaemon
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak at proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> i tested this with a few api calls (e.g. in the user creation/edit)
>> and it worked, but maybe the safer option would be to convert those
>> values to '1'/'0' ? we could reuse the 'normalize_legacy_param_formats'
>> function in RESTHandler for this, but this only checks the top level
>> parameters (which would be enough for now)
>>
>>   src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm b/src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm
>> index 85d47f2..ebe443f 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 $IPV4RE);
>>   use PVE::Exception qw(raise);
>>   use HTTP::Status qw(:constants);
>> +use JSON;
>>   use Net::IP qw(:PROC);
>>   use Data::Dumper;
>>   
>> @@ -1039,7 +1040,9 @@ sub check_type {
>>   	    # qr// regexes can be used as strings and make sense for format=regex
>>   	    return 1;
>>   	} else {
>> -	    if ($vt) {
> 
> ^ I think we should keep this
> 
>> +	    if ($type eq 'boolean' && JSON::is_bool($value)) {
> 
> ^ and just have this _inside_ the `if ($vt)` case - since that should be
> set in this case?
> 

sure makes sense, i'll wait with the next version if someone has any additional thing
to say about the general approach (@thomas? @fabian? @fiona?)