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 7A7C01FF184 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:06:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0DFAAC280; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:06:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <292443c9-8f1d-40f5-817b-1698e47c7a33@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:05:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Christian Ebner References: <20251120143149.480899-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20251120143149.480899-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763651117242 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.022 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v3] etc: raise nofile soft limit to hard limit for proxmox-backup-proxy X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" Am 20.11.25 um 15:32 schrieb Christian Ebner: > This is acceptable since PBS does not directly depend on problematic > select() calls as verified via `nm` and does not use it in linked > libraries to the best of my knowledge. > Isn't above and > Occurrences of the symbol according to `nm -D ` are: > > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libapt-pkg.so.7.0 > U select@GLIBC_2.2.5 > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpam.so.0 > U select@GLIBC_2.2.5 > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 > 000000000010e140 W select@@GLIBC_2.2.5 > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.so.3 > U select@GLIBC_2.2.5 above a contradiction? Or do I just misinterpret this? As it would seem to me that the usage of select symbols would in fact show that this might not be safe, or? If the API calls into any function of those libs, that might might then create a FD >= 1024 inside which then could get passed down to any of their select calls? _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel