From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F62F1FF13B for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2026 12:39:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8F4547D53; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 12:38:40 +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: Robert Obkircher , 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-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260602130001.217482-4-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> 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: 1780483084560 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.069 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: CA3ZCQLZMCVJWUT4M5VZMWUUOJ4TGIGU X-Message-ID-Hash: CA3ZCQLZMCVJWUT4M5VZMWUUOJ4TGIGU X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 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). > } > } > }