From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0C71FF141 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:05:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B10521AB01; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:06:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:06:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 06/27] pbs-config: implement encryption key config handling To: Thomas Lamprecht References: <20260411085154.1961287-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> <20260411085154.1961287-3-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260411085154.1961287-3-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776067514452 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.068 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 0.001 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 0.001 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 0.001 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: 5GKAEK3IB6OYH4DFVXULG6YVPRXRGJUL X-Message-ID-Hash: 5GKAEK3IB6OYH4DFVXULG6YVPRXRGJUL 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 CC: pbs-devel@lists.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: On 4/11/26 10:50 AM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > >> + replace_backup_config(ENCRYPTION_KEYS_CFG_FILENAME, raw.as_bytes())?; >> + >> + // drop key file lock >> + std::fs::remove_file(key_path)?; > > nit: if remove_file fails here, the config was already updated (key section > removed). Not dangerous since the key is no longer referenced, but you'd leave > a stale .enc file. Maybe just log a warning and return Ok instead of > propagating the error? Here I'm a bit unsure: The intention was to have an error, so the user is primed to look at why the key file removal failed. Just logging a warning might be easily missed, this does not run inside a task with log context after all. And one would expect that the key is removed from the filesystem, not just from the config, expecting it to not be (easily) recoverable?