From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100CB1FF13A for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 18:24:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5F06C1383B; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 18:24:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Christian Ebner Subject: applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/1] sync: pull: refuse to overwrite pre-existing encrypted snapshot Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 18:23:50 +0200 Message-ID: <177747982929.3682415.16295676132262746651.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260429143740.886870-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20260429143740.886870-1-c.ebner@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: 1777479740737 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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: GTSG26SRA6JLRE74VYAKZRMZ6W2NXUV5 X-Message-ID-Hash: GTSG26SRA6JLRE74VYAKZRMZ6W2NXUV5 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:37:40 +0200, Christian Ebner wrote: > If the source snapshot is not encrypted, the target snapshot however > is pre-existing and there is no decryption key which would detect the > mismatch, the unencrypted source will overwrite the encrypted target > due to resync because of mismatching raw manifests. > > Further, currently regular syncs of two potentially clashing > snapshots from different sources would lead to overwritig of the > target snapshot as well, since byte wise manifests differ. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] sync: pull: refuse to overwrite pre-existing encrypted snapshot commit: acfd017b761339177e5b069695fd3737178641f9