[pve-devel] [PATCH storage] close #5492: api: content: allow listing volumes with Datastore.Audit privilege

[Fabian Grünbichler]

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.ebner at 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.