From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 81F098D410
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Nov 2022 18:15:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5FA122E97A
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Nov 2022 18:15:23 +0100 (CET)
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,  7 Nov 2022 18:15:22 +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 EB30B4252A
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Nov 2022 18:15:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <36968ac0-73c1-466a-e122-485a2598d14b@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 18:15:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20221031113953.3111599-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20221031113953.3111599-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
 <20221107123538.i355vavyncl5edm7@casey.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221107123538.i355vavyncl5edm7@casey.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.033 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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] applied: [RFC PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2]
 file-restore: dynamically increase memory of vm for zpools
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, 07 Nov 2022 17:15:23 -0000

Am 07/11/2022 um 13:35 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
> applied

meh, can we please get this opt-in any only enabled it for root@pam or for users
with some powerfull priv on / as talked as chosen approach to allow more memory the
last time this came up (off list IIRC)... I really do *not* want a memory DOS potential
increased by a lot just opening some file-restore tabs, this actually should get more
restrictions (for common "non powerfull" users), not less..

> 
> AFAICT if the kernel patch is not applied it'll simply have no effect
> anyway, so we shouldn't need any "hard dependency bumps" where
> otherweise things break?

if you actually want to enforce that the new behavior is there you need a dependency
bump.