From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04861FF13A for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:45:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8DB0921446; Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:45:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:45:08 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [RFC proxmox{,-backup} 0/2] fix #7198: count veth uplink for PBS running in an LXC To: Jakob Klocker , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260707112008.321788-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> <56163436-7d4d-4604-bbff-2425e2bf7b2a@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <56163436-7d4d-4604-bbff-2425e2bf7b2a@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1783500266.gy98vfdd63.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783500302590 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.057 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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: M643LSKSLPLCIJ6GLS3CTQQZBB5RY5EE X-Message-ID-Hash: M643LSKSLPLCIJ6GLS3CTQQZBB5RY5EE 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 July 8, 2026 10:11 am, Jakob Klocker wrote: > On 7/7/26 2:15 PM, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> This seems a bit like a band-aid fix to me. Why do we not just get the u= plink >> interface via the default route: e.g. `ip -j route get 1.1.1.1 | jq .[0]= .dev`? >>=20 >=20 > As Fabian mentioned, this wouldn't cover multiple interfaces. If one > separates backup traffic onto a dedicated interface, that traffic > wouldn't get picked up. >=20 > IMO the `veth` check is the right call here, at least I haven't found > a better way. I'm open for suggestions though. I think the only other (more flexible) solution would be to have a file listing the interfaces that should be counted.. > What I'm still concerned about is whether it is necessary to handle > enslaved veth, since they would get picked up. I can't think of a real > use case where one would want to create such a setup in an LXC, but > since I'm not that experienced in that topic I'm happy for input! >=20 > Since running a PBS in an LXC is already not that common, paired with > renaming the interface to a not "normal" name, I would argue that > handling the enslaved veth is not really necessary.