You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@cloudstack.apache.org by "weizhouapache (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2026/10/07 15:41:16 UTC
[PR] network: use calling account instead of network owner for destroy context [cloudstack]
weizhouapache opened a new pull request, #14346:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346
### Description
This PR fixes an issue while deleting a network whose owning account is disabled fails with:
```
com.cloud.exception.PermissionDeniedException: Account Account
[{"accountName":"...","id":...}] is disabled.
at com.cloud.acl.DomainChecker.checkAccess(DomainChecker.java:149)
at com.cloud.user.AccountManagerImpl.checkAccess(AccountManagerImpl.java:831)
at com.cloud.network.firewall.FirewallManagerImpl.revokeFirewallRule(FirewallManagerImpl.java:1169)
at com.cloud.network.firewall.FirewallManagerImpl.revokeAllFirewallRulesForNetwork(FirewallManagerImpl.java:1356)
at org.apache.cloudstack.engine.orchestration.NetworkOrchestrator.cleanupNetworkResources(NetworkOrchestrator.java:4192)
at org.apache.cloudstack.engine.orchestration.NetworkOrchestrator.destroyNetwork(NetworkOrchestrator.java:3512)
```
- Root cause
NetworkServiceImpl.deleteNetwork, VpcManagerImpl (private network cleanup), and KubernetesClusterDestroyWorker each build the ReservationContext used for destroyNetwork() with the network's *owning* account as the acting account:
ReservationContext context = new ReservationContextImpl(null, null, callerUser, owner);
That "owner" account is then propagated all the way into FirewallManagerImpl.revokeFirewallRule() as the checkAccess() caller when cleaning up the network's firewall rules. DomainChecker.checkAccess() unconditionally rejects any caller whose account state isn't ENABLED, so if the network's owner account happens to be disabled (e.g. while it is being cleaned up, or simply disabled by an admin without removing it), network deletion is blocked entirely — even for a root admin performing the deletion.
By contrast, AccountManagerImpl.cleanupAccount() (the cascade that runs during full account deletion) already builds this same ReservationContext with the actual calling account instead of the owner:
```
ReservationContext context = new ReservationContextImpl(null, null, getActiveUser(callerUserId), caller);
```
...which is why account deletion itself was never affected — only a direct deleteNetwork/VPC-network-cleanup call against a disabled-but-not- yet-removed account.
- Fix
Use the actual calling account (the account performing the operation) instead of the network's owner account when building the ReservationContext for destroyNetwork(), in all three call sites, matching the pattern already used by AccountManagerImpl.cleanupAccount().
<!--- Describe your changes in DETAIL - And how has behaviour functionally changed. -->
<!-- For new features, provide link to FS, dev ML discussion etc. -->
<!-- In case of bug fix, the expected and actual behaviours, steps to reproduce. -->
<!-- When "Fixes: #<id>" is specified, the issue/PR will automatically be closed when this PR gets merged -->
<!-- For addressing multiple issues/PRs, use multiple "Fixes: #<id>" -->
<!-- Fixes: # -->
<!--- ******************************************************************************* -->
<!--- NOTE: AUTOMATION USES THE DESCRIPTIONS TO SET LABELS AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION. -->
<!--- PLEASE PUT AN 'X' in only **ONE** box -->
<!--- ******************************************************************************* -->
### Types of changes
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
- [ ] Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
- [ ] Build/CI
- [ ] Test (unit or integration test code)
### Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
#### Feature/Enhancement Scale
- [ ] Major
- [ ] Minor
#### Bug Severity
- [ ] BLOCKER
- [ ] Critical
- [ ] Major
- [ ] Minor
- [ ] Trivial
### Screenshots (if appropriate):
### How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!-- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran to -->
- Reproduced and verified
Reproduced end-to-end against a running management server (pre-fix build) by: creating a test account, creating an isolated network with the Firewall service and implementing it (deploy a VM), adding firewall rules on its source-NAT IP, disabling the account, destroying/expunging the VM, then attempting to delete the network — which failed with the exact same stack trace as above. Re-enabling the account allowed the same deleteNetwork call to succeed immediately, confirming the account's disabled state (via the owner-as-caller path) as the sole cause.
#### How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?
<!-- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
<!-- Please read the [CONTRIBUTING](https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) document -->
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@cloudstack.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] network: use calling account instead of network owner for destroy context [cloudstack]
Posted by "sonarqubecloud[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
sonarqubecloud[bot] commented on PR #14346:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346#issuecomment-6042231069
## [](https://sonarcloud.io/dashboard?id=apache_cloudstack&pullRequest=14346) **Quality Gate passed**
Issues
 [0 New issues](https://sonarcloud.io/project/issues?id=apache_cloudstack&pullRequest=14346&issueStatuses=OPEN,CONFIRMED&sinceLeakPeriod=true)
 [0 Accepted issues](https://sonarcloud.io/project/issues?id=apache_cloudstack&pullRequest=14346&issueStatuses=ACCEPTED)
Measures
 [0 Security Hotspots](https://sonarcloud.io/project/security_hotspots?id=apache_cloudstack&pullRequest=14346&issueStatuses=OPEN,CONFIRMED&sinceLeakPeriod=true)
 [0.0% Coverage on New Code](https://sonarcloud.io/component_measures?id=apache_cloudstack&pullRequest=14346&metric=new_coverage&view=list)
 [0.0% Duplication on New Code](https://sonarcloud.io/component_measures?id=apache_cloudstack&pullRequest=14346&metric=new_duplicated_lines_density&view=list)
<!-- sqra-placement-anchor -->
[See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud](https://sonarcloud.io/dashboard?id=apache_cloudstack&pullRequest=14346)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@cloudstack.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] network: use calling account instead of network owner for destroy context [cloudstack]
Posted by "Damans227 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Damans227 commented on code in PR #14346:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346#discussion_r4211052344
##########
server/src/main/java/com/cloud/network/vpc/VpcManagerImpl.java:
##########
@@ -2851,7 +2851,7 @@ protected boolean deletePrivateGatewayFromTheDB(final PrivateGateway gateway) {
if (deleteNetworkFinal) {
final User callerUser = _accountMgr.getActiveUser(CallContext.current().getCallingUserId());
final Account owner = _accountMgr.getAccount(Account.ACCOUNT_ID_SYSTEM);
- final ReservationContext context = new ReservationContextImpl(null, null, callerUser, owner);
+ final ReservationContext context = new ReservationContextImpl(null, null, callerUser, CallContext.current().getCallingAccount());
Review Comment:
any reason to change this one too? it already used the system account so it never hit the disabled account problem, and now a normal user deleting the gateway could fail the permission checks
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@cloudstack.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] network: use calling account instead of network owner for destroy context [cloudstack]
Posted by "codecov[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
codecov[bot] commented on PR #14346:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346#issuecomment-6041529166
## [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache) Report
:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
:white_check_mark: Project coverage is 4.04%. Comparing base ([`2974af8`](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/commit/2974af84f22a8def8339380628d8653a4f016d3f?dropdown=coverage&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache)) to head ([`eb3cb11`](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/commit/eb3cb11ab64dfc8a103258698c8510149be03e85?dropdown=coverage&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache)).
> :exclamation: There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (2974af8) and HEAD (eb3cb11). Click for more details.
>
> <details><summary>HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE</summary>
>
>| Flag | BASE (2974af8) | HEAD (eb3cb11) |
>|------|------|------|
>|unittests|1|0|
></details>
<details><summary>Additional details and impacted files</summary>
```diff
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 4.22 #14346 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 18.02% 4.04% -13.99%
=============================================
Files 5936 449 -5487
Lines 535823 38240 -497583
Branches 65612 7082 -58530
=============================================
- Hits 96582 1546 -95036
+ Misses 428242 36482 -391760
+ Partials 10999 212 -10787
```
| [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [uitests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache) | `4.04% <ø> (ø)` | |
| [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache) | `?` | |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.
</details>
[:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Harness](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/14346?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache).
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? [Share it here](https://about.codecov.io/codecov-pr-comment-feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache).
<details><summary> :rocket: New features to boost your workflow: </summary>
- :snowflake: [Test Analytics](https://docs.codecov.com/docs/test-analytics): Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
- :package: [JS Bundle Analysis](https://docs.codecov.com/docs/javascript-bundle-analysis): Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.
</details>
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@cloudstack.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org