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 7F36D1FF184 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:13:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9F50EC702; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:13:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:12:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20251120143149.480899-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <292443c9-8f1d-40f5-817b-1698e47c7a33@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <292443c9-8f1d-40f5-817b-1698e47c7a33@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763651537443 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.048 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On 11/20/25 4:05 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > 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 With above I intended to state that the PBS code itself does not call into select(), while below are dependencies on shared objects which might call into select() according to their symbols. > >> 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