From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 E3D6969CCC for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 12:36:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DA83636EB for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 12:36:36 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 5C79736E0 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 12:36:36 +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 2EAAE40483 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 12:36:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 12:36:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Stefan Sterz , Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20220309135031.1995207-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <717c8999-d3f8-a01b-a8f5-da0f5960d23f@proxmox.com> <20220314093617.n2mc2jv4k6ntzroo@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> <738d037f-ed3c-db76-287f-5b6d37a3b7f3@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <738d037f-ed3c-db76-287f-5b6d37a3b7f3@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.059 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #3336: api: remove backup group if the last snapshot is removed X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:36:36 -0000 On 14.03.22 12:13, Stefan Sterz wrote: > how do we move forward on this issue? the changes proposed above sound > rather far reaching and not really connected to the bug that sparked > the original patch. it might make sense to break them out into their > own patch series and either fix the issue at hand (bug #3336) after it > has been applied. alternatively we could just remove the "owner" file > in a given group. this should fix the bug too and would not suffer > from the locking problem (as we would lock its parent directory), but > would leave empty directories behind. please advise =F0=9F=98=84 >=20 I reread the actual bug and it seems that if we're Ok with just deleting the owner with the rather implicit reason of the last snapshot being deleted, allowing another authid to "snatch up" that backup group ownersh= ip, then just deleting the owner file would be the simplest solution. I'm not against that, and I definitively agree with the bug report that doing so is less work, but given how serious we honor the owner in genera= l, it feels a bit odd to just implicitly do so on a single snapshot deletion= =2E On the other hand, we also handle creation in a similar implicit matter, so maybe I'm overthinking it and just removing it would actually be more consistent/expected for users. So, if you don't see a problem/issue with that approach and agree with the last paragraph above feel free to go for deleting the owner file only= =2E