From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58D4611C1 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:50:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B1D791C6D7 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:50:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 7C1111C6CA for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:50:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3ACAF449B5 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:50:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:50:00 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Dominik Csapak Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20201202135000.nxcyky5lhnxddi6a@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> References: <20201202131957.17051-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20201202131957.17051-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201202131957.17051-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.020 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [datastore.rs] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2] backup/datastore: move manifest locking to /run 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:50:33 -0000 On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:19:57PM +0100, Dominik Csapak wrote: > this fixes the issue that on some filesystems, you cannot recursively > remove a directory when you hold a lock on a file inside (e.g. nfs/cifs) > > it is not really backwards compatible (so during an upgrade, there > could be two daemons have the lock), but since the locking was > broken before (see previous patch) it should not really matter > (also it seems very unlikely that someone will trigger this) > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > src/backup/datastore.rs | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/backup/datastore.rs b/src/backup/datastore.rs > index 0f74ac3c..9cc88906 100644 > --- a/src/backup/datastore.rs > +++ b/src/backup/datastore.rs > @@ -257,6 +257,12 @@ impl DataStore { > ) > })?; > > + // the manifest does not exists anymore, we do not need to keep the lock > + if let Ok(path) = self.manifest_lock_path(backup_dir) { > + // ignore errors > + let _ = std::fs::remove_file(path); > + } > + > Ok(()) > } > > @@ -698,13 +704,27 @@ impl DataStore { > )) > } > please describe the path in a doc comment here > + fn manifest_lock_path( > + &self, > + backup_dir: &BackupDir, > + ) -> Result { > + > + let mut path = PathBuf::from("/run/proxmox-backup/.locks/"); why `.locks` and not just `locks`? I don't see the benefit in "hidden" files in `/run`? > + path.push(self.name()); > + path.push(backup_dir.group().backup_type()); > + path.push(backup_dir.group().backup_id()); > + std::fs::create_dir_all(&path)?; Is there a particular reason you use a `PathBuf` here this way? Looks like you could just `format!()` it all the same? Since none of these types are `Path`s to begin with anyway. Since those components are all strings, IMO you could work with a `String` from the start and only convert to PathBuf at the end. Would save you the extra String allocation below. So if I see this right, the file will then be /run/proxmox-backup/.locks/$store/${type}/${id}/${timestamp}.index.json.lck seems reasonable apart from the dot in `.locks` ;-) However, do we really need the directory structure here? Shouldn't a flat `.../locks/${type}.${id}.${timestamp}.index.json` be fine as well? (I don't really mind, it would just be less code ;-) ) > + > + path.push(format!( "{}{}", backup_dir.backup_time_string(), &MANIFEST_LOCK_NAME)); > + > + Ok(path) > + } > + > fn lock_manifest( > &self, > backup_dir: &BackupDir, > ) -> Result { > - let mut path = self.base_path(); > - path.push(backup_dir.relative_path()); > - path.push(&MANIFEST_LOCK_NAME); > + let path = self.manifest_lock_path(backup_dir)?; > > // update_manifest should never take a long time, so if someone else has > // the lock we can simply block a bit and should get it soon > -- > 2.20.1