UI automatically reverts Signature = SHA256 or SHA512 to SHA1 in FileSet

michaeldolzani

When setting the FileSet Signature to SHA256 or SHA512 via the Bacularis UI and clicking Save, the value is automatically reverted back to SHA1.

Attachments:
• Screenshot 1: Signature = SHA512 selected before saving

• Screenshot 2: UI showing Signature = SHA1 after saving

Please investigate why the UI fails to persist SHA256/SHA512 selections.
Thank you! 😊

gani

Hello @michaeldolzani

In the past there was a bug in Bacula that caused this wrong behaviour. Because of that the bdirjson returned wrong value for signatures SHA256 and SHA512. It was fixed in Bacula 13.0.0.

https://gitlab.bacula.org/bacula-community-edition/bacula-community/-/commit/624fe7c0d67fc58da6fc32af0afb6a302769ba4c

If you use Bacula Director version lower than 13.0.0 then this is the answer and the solution is to upgrade the Bacula Director to 13.0.0 or greater.

Best regards,
Marcin Haba (gani)

michaeldolzani

Hi Marcin,

I’ve installed Bacula using Bacularis, so the versions of the Bacula Director and other components were automatically selected by Bacularis. Now I’d like to proceed with upgrading the Director and the other components to resolve the SHA‑256/SHA‑512 signature bug. How should I go about this?

For context, Bacularis is updated to the latest version (5.3.1), and apt update reports everything is up to date, yet Bacula remains at version 9.6.7.

Thanks in advance!

Best regards

gani

Hi @michaeldolzani

By default Bacularis to install Bacula uses system repositories. If in your OS repositories the latest Bacula version is 9.6.7 then to upgrade Bacula I am seeing at least four ways:

wait until the Bacula package maintainers in the OS will provide greater version to repositories, then upgrade.
add to the system package repositories a new repository with newer version of Bacula and then upgrade (so called "OS backport repositories")
use packages outside the OS repositories - packages from bacula.org
compile Bacula self to latest version

Each of the solutions have advantages and disadvantages. If I could advise anything, I would advise to do first or the second way. They are realized by the system package manager and for some distributions the upgrade process is automated in the packages.

For packages from bacula.org they are not compatible with the Bacula system packages. It means that the Bacula packages from system repositories have to be uninstalled (with preserving configuration and Bacula database) and then the packages from bacula.org need to be installed. This would also mean reconfiguration of Bacularis because the Bacula binary and config paths are different. Bacula.org packages use /opt directory for storing Bacula files.

Worth to mention is that between each Bacula major version there is changed the Bacula database table format. The table format needs to be updated by update_bacula_tables script. In some systems it is done automatically, in some other it requires manual execution. The best is to do the Bacula catalog database backup before that.

Also worth to say is that before every upgrade this is good to read the release notes from new versions.

Summing up, the upgrade process is not difficult. In many cases it is just to run the package manager upgrade command (like apt upgrade for deb systems) but before that good to remember is to do the mentioned backup of the Bacula database and Bacula configuration files as well.

Best regards,
Marcin Haba (gani)