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 C24EC1FF13B for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:18:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9E18F8AC7; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:18:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2e9ef1eb-476b-4b7f-bc4c-0237e42feca8@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:18:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox 3/5] pbs-api-types: deny non-lookup operations for unknown modes To: Christian Ebner , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260602130001.217482-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <20260602130001.217482-4-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-AT From: Robert Obkircher In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1780485458852 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.051 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: DOYHIITZBIHH22IFQ4FPZESTYSSX47K3 X-Message-ID-Hash: DOYHIITZBIHH22IFQ4FPZESTYSSX47K3 X-MailFrom: r.obkircher@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 03.06.26 12:38, Christian Ebner wrote: > On 6/2/26 3:00 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: >> Denying non-lookup operations for unknown modes seems like a safer > > s/seems like/is/ > >> default. This change should not affect anything because the backup >> server does not enable the enum-fallback feature. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Obkircher >> --- >>   pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs | 2 +- >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >> b/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >> index 7def498b..7e9599be 100644 >> --- a/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >> +++ b/pbs-api-types/src/maintenance.rs >> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ impl MaintenanceMode { >>                   bail!("read-only maintenance mode: {message}") >>               } >>               #[cfg(feature = "enum-fallback")] >> -            (MaintenanceType::UnknownEnumValue(_), _) => Ok(()), >> +            (MaintenanceType::UnknownEnumValue(m), _) => >> bail!("unknown maintenance mode: {m}"), > > What about PDM? I didn't recompile PDM with your changes on top, but > code wise the DatastorePanelComp currently only checks for offline > stores. Probably contents should not be shown if the maintenance > mode is unknown there (although pre-existing).  Does it ever call that function? I couldn't find anything but my lsp is not always reliable. This comparison [1] seems wrong if the mode has a message. [1] https://git.proxmox.com/?p=proxmox-datacenter-manager.git;a=blob;f=ui/src/pbs/datastore.rs;h=53be35bcb747561ef8855b1efc9d6c131f516117;hb=HEAD#l52 > >>           } >>       } >>   } >