From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6D8A1FF173 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:42:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3C22119D70; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:42:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:41:17 +0900 To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <e4cca824-31d7-40e9-b6de-31cbb711b604@proxmox.com> References: <20250322152004.1646886-1-jing@jing.rocks> <20250322152004.1646886-2-jing@jing.rocks> <e4cca824-31d7-40e9-b6de-31cbb711b604@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <mailman.130.1742816524.359.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> From: Jing Luo via pve-devel <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Precedence: list Cc: Jing Luo <jing@jing.rocks>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager 2/2] move /run/vzdump.lock to /run/lock/vzdump.lock Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0865921933402985472==" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --===============0865921933402985472== Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <jing@jing.rocks> X-Original-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Delivered-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com 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 C020CC9A41 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:42:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9AB2519DB3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:41:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-gw3.jing.rocks (mail-gw3.jing.rocks [219.117.250.209]) (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 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:41:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-gw3.jing.rocks (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail-gw3.jing.rocks (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C1D921035; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:41:20 +0900 (JST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jing.rocks; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:from:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to; s=mail-gw; bh=3pxDUE2USC22PKQngWNmpao5HbsqeIdQcH9+gmXu7sc=; b= nAIgMg+vR4csXa3p21Px3/Nz1t+5ZrCVpp/xTOgQE6h/iMrMgG1X7bdmII9s806S DQeo2GNEj+TeXVu7tdbBUYAeAw2W4Kr207c0bryjcVnQyd+pywXXHMKqJj8UPGMP icfgyLtlO+DleDBmPbQ1KzFd+IVh8yc5T5bTb8WNNm/hgx+Z5ikXOybYmKYKKFVP Oof3f5S+GxXHqJ/GxXZZFGmhvS8wKDltmxh8OF2LJV062wPPcbzGMoGbb2+OcF2I DhvVm/7pc36MKFyI4tND5yPnEQ9A/9gRit8y1Ma5OYz+4+XFfuOjuoHucDBFW8RT uGGAqB3j2MQT+PFMNFAiJw== Received: from mail.jing.rocks (mail.jing.rocks [192.168.0.222]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail-gw3.jing.rocks (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 906AC21084; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:41:18 +0900 (JST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=jing.rocks; s=default; t=1742816478; bh=oSovO7tRA73ZXWt1LZPvhJLaiVVhnb1RuIEHXIi/U0o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RI5sXB5AR7o1DirvkB6EyKh5QbYFWGuJxBZk2KChi+Namkj/EoTwrC1YFz5yGVKnx ErHqKZsAfWyCaV23RbxFOYkBCvy8p6gnYquW9CL5Ozcdq6L9md+yLoyg7Xso9JQyt9 4cKYW2HZUPArAYNI6cg+mzT7GOM3CR/8x35dBrfngKcernCxruu6o2piaG6wyVBkiX 5qIN63ZtvdSgbbZ5MiMCEkToVzAtY+kDs1q8UjPJAaEspKOaABjQwI7htigxwWZx62 HOKHT2H78Q61y5Agot3MgvPTnZ0YsyQAEaKWuXfpkwPUbVQK72eBW+47x8ah1YDNbF mMKJ6MQuUsVYg== Received: from mail.jing.rocks (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: jing@jing.rocks) by mail.jing.rocks (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77E4B3B22E; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:41:18 +0900 (JST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:41:17 +0900 From: Jing Luo <jing@jing.rocks> To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-manager 2/2] move /run/vzdump.lock to /run/lock/vzdump.lock In-Reply-To: <e4cca824-31d7-40e9-b6de-31cbb711b604@proxmox.com> References: <20250322152004.1646886-1-jing@jing.rocks> <20250322152004.1646886-2-jing@jing.rocks> <e4cca824-31d7-40e9-b6de-31cbb711b604@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <d8306d3000f15b2dc4dad5f0be32db4f@jing.rocks> X-Sender: jing@jing.rocks Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=_ff7ab83066d2a9346859416aae0b4c89"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.007 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ 0.75 Prevalent use of .info|.us|.me|.me.uk|.biz|xyz|id|rocks|life domains in spam/malware KAM_OTHER_BAD_TLD 0.75 Other untrustworthy TLDs KAM_SHORT 0.001 Use of a URL Shortener for very short URL 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 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --=_ff7ab83066d2a9346859416aae0b4c89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On 2025-03-24 17:02, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 22.03.25 um 16:17 schrieb Jing Luo: >> It's more appropriate under Debian, and vzdump.lock doesn't seem to >> be used by any other package. > > This is very dangerous and needs a ton of work to be done right. > > As any vzdump job that started before a package update got installed > that > includes this (and the others) patches and any job started afterwards > will > not be protected at all. My bad, for this patch I didn't think it through what the result could be. For now let's drop this patch. > Same for all other patches and the respective things they use the lock > to protect against mutual access. > > If this was done we would need to: > - keep the old lock path for one major release around and always > acquire > the lock over the old path first for as long as we can safely say > that > no old job is running. For a lot of things this means until the next > reboot, as /run is tmpfs backed and thus will be cleared then anyway. > > - need some actual good reason instead of "it's more appropriate" which > can be a fine argument for adding new lock paths but definitively not > enough to justify moving existing ones. > > The same holds for all patches of this series. What's wrong with other patches in the series? No lock file path is moved, b/c /var/run is a symlink to /run and /var/lock is a symlink to /run/lock, unless we have to account for non-Debian systems where /var/run and /var/lock are not symlinks? -- Jing Luo About me: https://jing.rocks/about/ GPG Fingerprint: 4E09 8D19 00AA 3F72 1899 2614 09B3 316E 13A1 1EFC --=_ff7ab83066d2a9346859416aae0b4c89 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc; size=228 Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQUNK5y7dM5LGmlOjiPRdGe/wwPKwUCZ+FE3QAKCRCPRdGe/wwP K/QJAP9QGnRbxFWt/kNyEOBIPhKEc4TcJCPBE5syNC78l7IP3QD9HOi3zbBwTrEW dBqFH+ewmNgr3nIjLXwGwLRHbPhdfgA= =L8pV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_ff7ab83066d2a9346859416aae0b4c89-- --===============0865921933402985472== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel --===============0865921933402985472==--