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 7A0131FF0ED for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 10:24:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F0E5B2141C; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 10:24:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 10:24:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta From: Erik Fastermann Subject: Re: [PATCH container v2] fix #7164: lxc: restore: apply password and ssh keys during container restore To: Elias Huhsovitz , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260729082545.17885-1-e.huhsovitz@proxmox.com> <2f38582b-6c68-427f-94b7-1eab09dec34e@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1785486285465 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.011 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust 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: KHXDQ6YT2KBTZ3DFH2H62VT6HXMJXXGW X-Message-ID-Hash: KHXDQ6YT2KBTZ3DFH2H62VT6HXMJXXGW X-MailFrom: e.fastermann@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 VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: [snip] >>> Add `check_systemd_nesting` to the `post_restore_hook`. >> >> Why is this added? A rational here would be helpful. If the reason is >> just symmetry with `post_create_hook`, we might need to be careful here, >> as this could introduce new unwanted failure conditions. I have not >> checked in detail, but some of the code can die. > > I believed adding this check might make the restore process more resiliant > since the user might get important warnings early, thus reducing the amount > of troubleshooting needed. > > But as you pointed out, this could lead to a regression. > > Since a restore is technically a creating a new contaienrs, i felt as > though adding this check made sense. Perhaps the `die` is a good thing? > Alerting the user early regarding potential issues, might be beneficial. > > I am curious to know what your opinion is on this! After more consideration > I am strongly considering omitting the check. > More checks are usually good and I currently don't see a concrete use-case where having this check would break something. I still would prefer if this was an additional patch as it is unrelated to the original fix. [snip]