need help with an rsync patch
sherinmon at gmail.com
Tue Aug 27 21:14:21 MDT 2013
On Wednesday 28 August 2013 08:36 AM, Kevin Korb wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Only when you choose to force a completely unnecessary chown between
> the backup and restore process.
> On 08/27/13 23:03, Sherin A wrote:
>> On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:14 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: My opinion
>> on backups is pretty simplistic. If a restore of my backup doesn't
>> bring me back to what I had when I backed up then I don't have a
>> If I have to restore something and the relationship between files
>> that were hard linked in the past is lost that might not be
>> something that I even notice immediately. Maybe not until the file
>> is changed and now there are 2 versions of it in different places
>> since the relationship is gone.
>> Either way, not backing up the hard link relationships duplicates
>> data on both the backup and on any potential restore.
>> But even more importantly, the original question was about
>> excluding all files with linkcount>1 from backups. That means that
>> any file important enough to have in more than one place would in
>> fact never be backed up at all. That is crazy.
>> On 08/27/13 18:37, Henri Shustak wrote:
>>>>>> The solution is not to refuse to backup any file that is a
>>>>>> hard link. There are legitimate reasons to have hard links
>>>>>> and ignoring them means you aren't backing up everything.
>>>>> I agree that preserving hard links may be important in some
>>>>> situation. There are certainly legitimate reasons to preserve
>>>>> hard links within a backup.
>>>>> To more than a couple of years I have been weighing up the
>>>>> advantages and disadvantages relating to including a hard
>>>>> link preservation support within LBackup. The latest alpha
>>>>> build of LBackup now includes support for hard link
> This email is protected by LBackup, an open source backup solution
>> This is not crazy. Why a privileged user need to create multilevel
>> hard links . This issue has been approved by secunia security
>> community. Hope they will report it as a vulnerability , because
>> this POC has been exploited successfully and it is affected by all
>> software that use rsync as a backup and restore tool.
> - --
> Kevin Korb Phone: (407) 252-6853
> Systems Administrator Internet:
> FutureQuest, Inc. Kevin at FutureQuest.net (work)
> Orlando, Florida kmk at sanitarium.net (personal)
> Web page: http://www.sanitarium.net/
> PGP public key available on web site.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
That is right , but no one give root ownerships for a local users
files in any situation, it must be need to chown , And no one like to
store the backups over internet under a remote privileged ( root) users
account. This only affect production servers, for personal users there
is no such thret for rsync.
More information about the rsync