From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 859F667239
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:59:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 76F13152C4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:58:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E8CA1152B7
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:58:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A7D6745BF1
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:58:31 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20201109085633.12688-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1990b472-a0e6-1f05-006e-45cfefd479ab@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:58:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201109085633.12688-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.036 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] fix maxfiles behavior
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 09:59:02 -0000
On 11/9/20 9:56 AM, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> Commit 5ba2a605ac14de58572f7b8d6e04b45b34724b0a hard-coded 0 as the default
> for maxfiles in the --storage case, but the actual default should be the
> value from read_vzdump_defaults(), which obtains the value from
> /etc/vzdump.conf or the VZDump schema if the value has not been modified in
> that file. The initial default from the schema is 1, not 0.
> Tested on PVE 6.1 to verify that behavior.
>
> Move the sanity check for zero-ness to where we have the final value for
> maxfiles. Like this, we also have an implicit definedness check and more
> importantly, it is more future-proof in case we ever allow maxfiles 0 in the
> VZDump schema itself.
>
> Also, force conversion to int to be extra safe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>
> @Stefan: I wasn't able to trigger a warning about using '== 0' on a non-number type,
> the only thing I can get is:
> Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==)
Hm, maybe I got the message mixed up.
>
> Does this patch work with your use case as well or is there something off?
Works fine!
Sorry for the 'wrong' fix then, I only found the bug because some of my
automated tests stopped working and didn't look to deeply into it.
Thanks for the followup :)
>
> PVE/VZDump.pm | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/VZDump.pm b/PVE/VZDump.pm
> index 517becb1..40a5a035 100644
> --- a/PVE/VZDump.pm
> +++ b/PVE/VZDump.pm
> @@ -474,11 +474,7 @@ sub new {
>
> if (!defined($opts->{'prune-backups'}) && !defined($opts->{maxfiles})) {
> $opts->{'prune-backups'} = $info->{'prune-backups'};
> - $opts->{maxfiles} = $info->{maxfiles} // 0;
> - if ($opts->{maxfiles} == 0) {
> - # zero means keep all, so avoid triggering any remove code path to be safe
> - $opts->{remove} = 0;
> - }
> + $opts->{maxfiles} = $info->{maxfiles};
> }
> }
> } elsif ($opts->{dumpdir}) {
> @@ -490,7 +486,13 @@ sub new {
>
> if (!defined($opts->{'prune-backups'})) {
> my $maxfiles = delete $opts->{maxfiles} // $defaults->{maxfiles};
> - $opts->{'prune-backups'} = { 'keep-last' => $maxfiles } if $maxfiles;
> + $maxfiles = int($maxfiles); # shouldn't be necessary, but be safe
> + if ($maxfiles) {
> + $opts->{'prune-backups'} = { 'keep-last' => $maxfiles };
> + } else {
> + # maxfiles being zero means keep all, so avoid triggering any remove code path to be safe
> + $opts->{remove} = 0;
> + }
> }
>
> if ($opts->{tmpdir} && ! -d $opts->{tmpdir}) {
>