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 1F4321FF13A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:07:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B6F4A7C7A; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:07:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:06:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v3 07/30] pbs-config: implement encryption key config handling To: Christian Ebner , =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260414125923.892345-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20260414125923.892345-8-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <576f8999-1a20-417a-9c6d-ec79467661da@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <576f8999-1a20-417a-9c6d-ec79467661da@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776240311550 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.002 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: A73Q4QZL76UI4TLHHQCWPBKVZ6UTB6SC X-Message-ID-Hash: A73Q4QZL76UI4TLHHQCWPBKVZ6UTB6SC X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 15/04/2026 08:47, Christian Ebner wrote: >>> >>> +    // lock to avoid race with key deletion >>> +    open_backup_lockfile(&key_lock_path, None, true)?; >> >> This needs to be assigned to a variable, no? Otherwise, the lock would >> be immediately dropped. > > Oh, good catch! Indeed without this the lock would be immediately dropped, will be fixed. Thanks! Might be good to tag the open_backup_lockfile fn with the #[must_use] attr: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/attributes/diagnostics.html#the-must_use-attribute