From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
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 3F32791B8F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:09:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1A933AC1E
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:09:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (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
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:09:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C29E46F5A
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:09:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:09:12 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <20230327130912.sok4n5x7quoxcj2p@casey.proxmox.com>
References: <20230227095012.291373-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230227095012.291373-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.129 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
Subject: [pbs-devel] applied: [RFC proxmox-backup] drop exclusive lock for
 verify-after-complete
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:09:39 -0000

applied

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:50:12AM +0100, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> the backup is finished at that point, the only lock clash that is possible when
> dropping the exclusive and attempting to obtain a shared lock would be
> 
> - the snapshot is pruned/removed
> - the backup is in a pre-upgrade process, and the post-upgrade process opens a reader
> 
> the first case is OK, if the other invocation wins the race and removes the
> snapshot verification is pointless anyway.
> 
> the second case means the snapshot is not verified directly after completion
> (this fact would be logged in the backup task log), but usable immediately for
> pulling/restoring/..
> 
> this should decrease the chances of triggering the issues described in #4523
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     right now our locking helpers don't support a direct downgrade (or attempt to
>     upgrade, for that matter). given that we don't have many use cases that require

up/downgrading existing locks is a weird thing to do anyway and either
ruins the queues (or fails) anyway...