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 C63E21FF18C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:04:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8DB951B831; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:04:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:04:40 +0900 To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <58410023-8845-4c39-a974-8f796cab10dd@proxmox.com> References: <20250322152004.1646886-1-jing@jing.rocks> <20250322152004.1646886-2-jing@jing.rocks> <e4cca824-31d7-40e9-b6de-31cbb711b604@proxmox.com> <d8306d3000f15b2dc4dad5f0be32db4f@jing.rocks> <58410023-8845-4c39-a974-8f796cab10dd@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <mailman.137.1742821492.359.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="===============1443704398461148864==" 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) --===============1443704398461148864== 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 62D14C9B9C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:04:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 44C811B802 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:04:51 +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 14:04:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-gw3.jing.rocks (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail-gw3.jing.rocks (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4FDF821510; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:04:43 +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=YyOz+xovj2QEgJExoUMENyjXSBgNs/aIO0AYv98eWeA=; b= gwAYaPvTMMAy8fbLhfp4Cfsg6cpr/XC2AKDU7U8PFIGVbl6GukYcV3Ml7NZ1phbU NP6Qeh5djvsATOsa/I1BR7eNVsBFKWWEv5o/yy6+Tlsp1FPyji5eaGOyQtzS1DWb MojSwrPInmBWvXZc0AJGlNV/kgKOKYSFJRNoXFkeVvFyBgJmRoy/Bc0sVqrCQGZH zPMiHtR+9Dt1uuHA4/67kCmxvPdWjmH0wqtFKPLL4ygSrIzINtv9XFccTX8i8Mys JXPBrZ2tRJZ5zxOYBf3s4Qpz8bSZezyc16k/cUsbbbxkfoxwinXWoT8ibVsK/XmS /9hL3iQS38jp1wrGyaKkpg== Received: from mail.jing.rocks (mail.jing.rocks [IPv6:240b:10:f00:1b00::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 77188214E8; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:04:41 +0900 (JST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=jing.rocks; s=default; t=1742821481; bh=+zwJDH/iZMQwObxBt/XLbir1W2WjpPZMqbSPCEQa5d4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jJ5G7ImghxgmRoD41VsBB2RWYejP7NTN2AzWP2Dsog4VGTI+ArDE1nc7y7BtSO01x dAbGXXi7eSt3BVr6sHv+CGCNihQs1GSTJ4E5tiXrZdBWfAgO2rao1SlYcxQ+Exvd/b 7SXhZo6LU8shPkEDOXFrZQ8vrXk35ht3GvnIwZhwwxa2RRaNeeANCq5aWN57Eyae6N Zb8RPWj54vu7kuF1r7UkdPWJ1vC2IlgcS8Gsemt9JuJy4fKTXpqXeX6j5hkDcjbPK2 uAktb1uNbvhDLC+udvXrJjAVg+2oMck8mnJBgO11sOnPhU9MExCBPuKLotBcJ2djqL LNDdEj5lxnHdA== Received: from mail.jing.rocks (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: jing@jing.rocks) by mail.jing.rocks (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C3483B2F4; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:04:41 +0900 (JST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:04:40 +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: <58410023-8845-4c39-a974-8f796cab10dd@proxmox.com> References: <20250322152004.1646886-1-jing@jing.rocks> <20250322152004.1646886-2-jing@jing.rocks> <e4cca824-31d7-40e9-b6de-31cbb711b604@proxmox.com> <d8306d3000f15b2dc4dad5f0be32db4f@jing.rocks> <58410023-8845-4c39-a974-8f796cab10dd@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <39e9a7cd767a4de295ab573fa71c7722@jing.rocks> X-Sender: jing@jing.rocks Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=_0db442d2d35d6c6d1cdec6c195166ef3"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.000 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 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) --=_0db442d2d35d6c6d1cdec6c195166ef3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On 2025-03-24 20:56, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > [...] > Yeah, that I noticed later too, but it would be indeed good to check if > this is a guarantee (i.e., by Debian policy) for all systems now, even > if they got created with a very ancient PVE/Debian version. > > I only did a quick check, and found [0]: > >> Packages must not include files or directories under /run, or under >> the older /var/run and /var/lock paths. The latter paths will normally >> be symlinks or other redirections to /run for backwards compatibility. > > [0]: > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#run-and-run-lock > > So does not seem like a hard guarantee that /var/lock is always a > symlink > to /run/lock and that /var/run is always a symlink to /run, so if the > careful approach would be to switch to the new paths for our Trixie > based > builds and add a check for the case where /var/lock and /var/run are > not > symlinks in the future pve8to9 checker script and output a > warning/error > in that case; that said I'm not sure if it's worth it, would be maybe > good > to see since which Debian/PVE version the symlink exists to be able to > better judge that though. I just found that this is technically a systemd thing: at boot time, systemd creates the symlinks /var/run -> /run and /var/lock -> /run/lock, this is written in /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/var.conf and /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/legacy.conf, which has been true at least since Debian switched to systemd in 2015. So these two have always been symlinks (unless the machine has not been restarted in the past 10+ years). [1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/RunDirectory -- Jing Luo About me: https://jing.rocks/about/ GPG Fingerprint: 4E09 8D19 00AA 3F72 1899 2614 09B3 316E 13A1 1EFC --=_0db442d2d35d6c6d1cdec6c195166ef3 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+FYaAAKCRCPRdGe/wwP K+SoAPwMEodheIidYaEa2bGh4bVn5eo2+0jtog4oFIDK/nBA9AD/XTbxGCxCaNMB /PcPFgjCnpWO0/lCeLZPC9W1KF7b4QQ= =ptxw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_0db442d2d35d6c6d1cdec6c195166ef3-- --===============1443704398461148864== 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 --===============1443704398461148864==--