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 7E34A6AB78 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:02:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E89F86CA for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:02:33 +0200 (CEST) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id EAC35866A for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:02:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BD03A434B1 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:02:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Fabian Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:02:27 +0200 Message-Id: <20210917130227.248852-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 In-Reply-To: <20210917130227.248852-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20210917130227.248852-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.325 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [vzdump.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] [RFC manager 1/1] vzdump: skip protected backups for dumpdir pruning X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 13:02:33 -0000 Keeps the behavior consistent with what happens for storages. It also is required to not get into conflict with the check in archive_remove, i.e. pruning here marks a backup as 'remove' and then archive_remove complains that it's protected. Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner --- I'm noticing now that old manager + new storage will still have the problem with the added protection check in archive_remove. Is that considered to be breaking? Can only be triggered by making use of the new feature (or if .protected files were already present...), but it would potentially affect scenarios where vzdump --storage name vzdump --dumpdir /path/for/name/dump are used in parallel. Dependency bump for pve-storage needed. PVE/VZDump.pm | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/PVE/VZDump.pm b/PVE/VZDump.pm index d00be8b2..a5a956c8 100644 --- a/PVE/VZDump.pm +++ b/PVE/VZDump.pm @@ -992,6 +992,13 @@ sub exec_backup_task { my $pruned = 0; if (!defined($opts->{storage})) { my $bklist = get_backup_file_list($opts->{dumpdir}, $bkname); + + for my $prune_entry ($bklist->@*) { + if (-e PVE::Storage::protection_file_path($prune_entry->{path})) { + $prune_entry->{mark} = 'protected'; + } + } + PVE::Storage::prune_mark_backup_group($bklist, $prune_options); foreach my $prune_entry (@{$bklist}) { -- 2.30.2