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 DA8F16AAB9 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:03:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D18FA2F84B for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:03:59 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 5A7D92F83F for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:03:59 +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 2C8AB426FD for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:03:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:03:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20211216121233.162288-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20211216121233.162288-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <0df19ffc-a685-1605-89ea-2f288aba26da@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <0df19ffc-a685-1605-89ea-2f288aba26da@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.122 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [storage.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 2/2] plugins: allow limiting the number of protected backups per guest 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, 17 Mar 2022 08:03:59 -0000 Am 16.03.22 um 17:42 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 16.12.21 13:12, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm >> index d64019f..0643fad 100755 >> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm >> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm >> @@ -232,6 +232,30 @@ sub update_volume_attribute { >> my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid); >> my $plugin = PVE::Storage::Plugin->lookup($scfg->{type}); >> >> + my ($vtype, undef, $vmid) = $plugin->parse_volname($volname); >> + my $max_protected_backups = $scfg->{'max-protected-backups'} // 5; > > maybe the default limit should be user privilege dependent? E.g., for root and users > with .Allocate on the storage it wouldn't be a problem to have unlimited (or a higher > count) as default? I mean, it's naturally a bit odd to differ, but one can argue a lot > with auto-magic-convenience ;P > Would add another dimension to the complexity ;) Also feels a bit awkward code-wise at a first glance, as we'd need to get the rpcenv/user in such a sub (or pass the user or pre-computed default in somehow). But if you really want to, I can give it a go for v2.