Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v3] fix #7382: correctly anchor nested paths for include/exclude patterns.

[Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>]

On 3/17/26 4:08 PM, Manuel Federanko wrote:
> On 2026-03-17 4:02 PM, Christian Ebner wrote:
>> On 3/16/26 3:23 PM, Manuel Federanko wrote:
>>> A pattern in a subdirectory would be built by just prepending the parent
>>> directory. This could break anchored patterns, which wouldn't match if
>>> the parent directory didn't start with a slash.
>>> Fixed this by explicitly checking if the base path starts with a slash
>>> and prepending it if it does not exist.
>>>
>>> It worked for anchored patterns in the root backup directory because
>>> here the pattern is "" + "/exclude".
>>>
>>> old:
>>> match_path = /level0/level1/exclude
>>> pattern = level0/level1/exclude
>>>
>>> new:
>>> match_path = /level0/level1/exclude
>>> pattern = /level0/level1/exclude
>>>
>>> Tested by creating a directory structure as described in the bug ticket
>>> and verifying the behavior.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Manuel Federanko <m.federanko@proxmox.com>
>>> Fixes: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7382
>>> ---
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the patch, looks good to me!
>>
>> Although one question came up during review:
>>
>> Will the `Archiver` path ever start with a '/' at all?
>>
>> As far as I could see it is set to be empty on instantiation (which is
>> equal to the pxar source root), and only filenames from dir entries are
>> pushed or popped from the path. So it seems the additional check for
>> `!path_bytes.starts_with(b"/")` is not strictly required? Or am I
>> missing it?
>>
>> But leaving this in place as additional check for robustness is probably
>> fine.
> I was considering this, but didn't want to leave it up to chance
> considering further developments. Seeing as the the !path_bytes.is_empty()
> is required anyways I left it in.


Okay, thanks for clarification.

Reviewed-by: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>