On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 02:34:19PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
When setting up a new guest or when a management software wants
to allow access to an existing guest the
virDomainSetUserPassword() API can be used, but that might be not
good enough if user want to ssh into the guest. Not only sshd has
to be configured to accept password authentication (which is
usually not the case for root), user have to type in their
password. Using SSH keys is more convenient. Therefore, two new
APIs are introduced:
virDomainAuthorizedSSHKeysGet() which lists authorized keys for
given user, and
virDomainAuthorizedSSHKeysSet() which modifies the authorized
keys file for given user (append, set or remove keys from the
file).
It's worth nothing that while authorized_keys file entries have
some structure (as defined by sshd(8)), expressing that structure
goes beyond libvirt's focus and thus "keys" are nothing but an
opaque string to libvirt.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com>
---
include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h | 17 ++++
src/driver-hypervisor.h | 15 ++++
src/libvirt-domain.c | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
src/libvirt_public.syms | 6 ++
4 files changed, 171 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h b/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h
index e1095a193d..d81157ccaf 100644
--- a/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h
+++ b/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h
@@ -5101,4 +5101,21 @@ int virDomainBackupBegin(virDomainPtr domain,
char *virDomainBackupGetXMLDesc(virDomainPtr domain,
unsigned int flags);
+int virDomainAuthorizedSSHKeysGet(virDomainPtr domain,
+ const char *user,
+ char ***keys,
+ unsigned int flags);
+
+typedef enum {
+ VIR_DOMAIN_AUTHORIZED_SSH_KEYS_SET_APPEND = (1 << 0), /* don't truncate
file, just append */
+ VIR_DOMAIN_AUTHORIZED_SSH_KEYS_SET_REMOVE = (1 << 1), /* remove keys, instead
of adding them */
+
+} virDomainAuthorizedSSHKeysSetFlags;
+
+int virDomainAuthorizedSSHKeysSet(virDomainPtr domain,
+ const char *user,
+ const char **keys,
+ int nkeys,
+ unsigned int flags);
Is there a reason you used "int nkeys" here rather than "unsigned int
nkeys".
The code clearly requires a non-negative value, but nothing ever checks that,
so a caller passing -1 would have undefined behaviour AFAICT.
So can we change this to unsigned int ?
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|