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 C62B965702 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:07:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B814A27F44 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:07:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 0951E27F39 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:07:18 +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 C2A024332B for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:07:17 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20200723092136.2527542-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Stefan Reiter Message-ID: <4e2552b4-8ea8-6252-f58e-f22e08d55ec4@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:07:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200723092136.2527542-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.866 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.703 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup-qemu] fix #2866: invalidate bitmap on crypt_mode change 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:07:18 -0000 idea looks ok, comments inline On 7/23/20 11:21 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > signed and plain backups share chunks, so bitmap reusal is okay for > those combinations. switching from encrypted to not encrypted or > vice-versa could have pretty fatal consequences - either referencing > plain-text chunks in 'encrypted' backups, or referencing encrypted > chunks in 'unencrypted' backups without still having the corresponding > keys.. > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler > --- > > Notes: > requires recent proxmox-backup with public lookup_file_info > > src/backup.rs | 3 ++- > src/commands.rs | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/backup.rs b/src/backup.rs > index 717e099..b8108ef 100644 > --- a/src/backup.rs > +++ b/src/backup.rs > @@ -202,7 +202,8 @@ impl BackupTask { > device_name: String, > size: u64, > ) -> bool { > - check_last_incremental_csum(self.last_manifest(), device_name, size) > + check_last_incremental_csum(self.last_manifest(), &device_name, size) > + && check_last_encryption_mode(self.last_manifest(), &device_name, self.crypt_mode) > } > > pub async fn register_image( > diff --git a/src/commands.rs b/src/commands.rs > index 6f26324..8d8f2a7 100644 > --- a/src/commands.rs > +++ b/src/commands.rs > @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ pub(crate) async fn add_config( > > pub(crate) fn check_last_incremental_csum( > manifest: Option>, > - device_name: String, > + device_name: &str, > device_size: u64, > ) -> bool { > > @@ -91,12 +91,43 @@ pub(crate) fn check_last_incremental_csum( > > let archive_name = format!("{}.img.fidx", device_name); > > - match PREVIOUS_CSUMS.lock().unwrap().get(&device_name) { > + match PREVIOUS_CSUMS.lock().unwrap().get(device_name) { > Some(csum) => manifest.verify_file(&archive_name, &csum, device_size).is_ok(), > None => false, > } > } > > +pub(crate) fn check_last_encryption_mode( > + manifest: Option>, > + device_name: &str, > + crypt_mode: CryptMode, > +) -> bool { > + > + let manifest = match manifest { > + Some(ref manifest) => manifest, > + None => return false, > + }; this... > + > + let archive_name = format!("{}.img.fidx", device_name); ...and this could probably be moved to check_incremental to avoid duplication. > + match manifest.lookup_file_info(&archive_name) { > + Ok(file) => { > + eprintln!("device {} last mode: {:?} current mode {:?}", device_name, file.crypt_mode, crypt_mode); left over debug print or intentional? this would be hidden atm, as we don't track QEMU output anywhere. > + match file.crypt_mode { > + CryptMode::Encrypt => match crypt_mode { > + CryptMode::Encrypt => true, > + _ => false, > + }, > + CryptMode::SignOnly | CryptMode::None => match crypt_mode { you can use the _ match here too, same as in the inner match call. > + CryptMode::Encrypt => false, > + _ => true, > + }, > + } > + }, > + _ => false, > + } > +} > + > + > pub(crate) async fn register_image( > client: Arc, > crypt_config: Option>, >