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 7BAD81FF13C for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:05:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D86381256C; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:05:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <57632a32-1565-486a-bc05-ccd426d070f5@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:05:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v1 1/2] fix #7400: api: gracefully handle corrupted job statefiles To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260317160722.201693-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20260317160722.201693-2-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773907469354 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.005 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 0.408 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 0.819 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 0.903 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 Message-ID-Hash: ISWKC3EM2LEAFJITZDVO56FQIJMQJ3SW X-Message-ID-Hash: ISWKC3EM2LEAFJITZDVO56FQIJMQJ3SW X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 3/18/26 6:22 PM, Michael Köppl wrote: > On Tue Mar 17, 2026 at 5:07 PM CET, Michael Köppl wrote: > > [snip] > >> }; >> use pbs_config::prune; >> use pbs_config::CachedUserInfo; >> @@ -73,10 +73,13 @@ pub fn list_prune_jobs( >> let mut list = Vec::new(); >> >> for job in job_config_iter { >> - let last_state = JobState::load("prunejob", &job.id) >> - .map_err(|err| format_err!("could not open statefile for {}: {}", &job.id, err))?; >> - >> - let mut status = compute_schedule_status(&last_state, Some(&job.schedule))?; >> + let mut status = match JobState::load("prunejob", &job.id) { >> + Ok(last_state) => compute_schedule_status(&last_state, Some(&job.schedule))?, >> + Err(err) => { >> + log::error!("could not open statefile for {}: {}", &job.id, err); > > Since I'm currently preparing v2, would it make sense to instead make > this a warning? Not quite sure about it, but displaying an error to the > user and then just continuing (and having self-healing behavior) seems a > bit odd to me. IMO it makes sense as an error. There was an error reading the file after all. And you might not always be able to self-heal. E.g. what if you cannot re-write the state file (although this should be logged as well). Further, I do not expect these to show up frequently and the error message could be adapted to include the default being used as fallback?