From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E98AF1FF136 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 10:31:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1EC82F189; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 10:32:07 +0100 (CET) From: =?UTF-8?q?Fabian=20Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Manuel Federanko Subject: applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup v4] fix #7382: correctly anchor nested paths for include/exclude patterns. Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 10:31:46 +0100 Message-ID: <177425829499.241881.5573045011451149058.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260316142342.67535-1-m.federanko@proxmox.com> References: <20260316142342.67535-1-m.federanko@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774258277735 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.055 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 4LIXMEUDZDUG5GTUKAUBU3BCWF6ZWAY2 X-Message-ID-Hash: 4LIXMEUDZDUG5GTUKAUBU3BCWF6ZWAY2 X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 15:23:42 +0100, Manuel Federanko wrote: > A pattern in a subdirectory would be built by just prepending the parent > directory. This could break anchored patterns, which wouldn't match if > the parent directory didn't start with a slash. > Fixed this by explicitly checking if the base path starts with a slash > and prepending it if it does not exist. > > It worked for anchored patterns in the root backup directory because > here the pattern is "" + "/exclude". > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] fix #7382: correctly anchor nested paths for include/exclude patterns. commit: f07beb55f9dd881c0174bfa17e04bac95d7217a0 Best regards, -- Fabian Grünbichler