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 D29161FF143 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2026 20:59:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9E85D370E; Sat, 25 Apr 2026 20:59:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <769a6210-35b4-4dbe-9314-4e4ab045f2f2@proxmox.com> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 20:59:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: m.federanko@proxmox.com References: <1fcc11ea-e66c-414e-a6f4-9ab43d0dae87@proxmox.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2] fix #5247: relative paths in exclude patterns. Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1fcc11ea-e66c-414e-a6f4-9ab43d0dae87@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777143470261 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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: 7WISJ7RYC56YWGS6C3XSZU4GHPK5FVVA X-Message-ID-Hash: 7WISJ7RYC56YWGS6C3XSZU4GHPK5FVVA 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 CC: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com, w.bumiller@proxmox.com 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: >> As for `--exclude`, I wonder we should just *bail* instead? >> >> Although that might "break" some automated >> otherwise-working-but-probably-too-big backups, so we can't... (although >> for `foo/../bar` it's *really* tempting...) > > I'm a bit undecided, maybe log a warning with a deprecation notice that > this will lead to an error in the future? Same goes for the cli option > now that I'm thinking about it. I'd rather error on the side of caution and log a warning notice, even if it's unlikely. As, e.g., some unmonitored backup CLI job not being able to make backups after some (auto-)update pulled in the new version is *far* from great.