On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 13:38:13 +0000, Daniel Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 04:42:43PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
The necessity to specify the secret value as command argument is insecure. Allow reading the secret from a file.
Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> --- docs/manpages/virsh.rst | 5 +++-- tools/virsh-secret.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/manpages/virsh.rst b/docs/manpages/virsh.rst index fcc8ef6758..992b1daf90 100644 --- a/docs/manpages/virsh.rst +++ b/docs/manpages/virsh.rst @@ -6558,10 +6558,11 @@ secret-set-value
.. code-block::
- secret-set-value secret base64 + secret-set-value secret (--file filename | base64)
Set the value associated with *secret* (specified by its UUID) to the value -Base64-encoded value *base64*. +Base64-encoded value *base64* or from file named *filename*. Note that *--file* +and *base64* options are mutually exclusive.
You added a --plain option to secret-get-value.
It would naturally suggest that we do the same here, then we can support
secret-set-value $BASE64STR secret-set-value --plain $RAWSTR
I think that both of the above should not have existed in the first place. Adding the possibility to add plain secrets via argument looks to me as a step back. If I could do it, I'd remove the base64 via command line arguments as well.
secret-set-value --file FILENAME-WITH-BASE64-STR
This seems a bit pointless to me.
secret-set-value --plain --file FILENAME-WITH-RAW-STR