On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 20:54, Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 04:07:31PM +0000, Richard Lewis wrote:
> > > This is not really about debusine. It is about autopkgtest in general. > > > If you happen to set up an autopkgtest image that happens to not use > > > ifupdown/dhclient (which presently is the default), but uses > > > systemd-networkd instead, you may locally reproduce the issue. > > > > > > i tried to confirm this and it does not seem to be the case. I started with > > the chkrootkit version that failed in debusine. i did an sbuild and made it > > run the rests in lxc -- it passes, but lxc is using dhclient. > > > > i then added "exit 1" to the test and used > > --shell-fail so i got a shell in lxc > > > > this seems to be broken ( > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1073927) but, bizarrely, > > if you a suspend (Ctrl-z) and then resume (fg) it works. Then you can do: > > > > apt purge purge isc-dhcp-client > > systemctl stop networking.service > > > > cat > /etc/systemd/network/eth.network <<EOF > > > > [Match] > > Name=eth* > > > > [Network] > > DHCP=ipv4 > > EOF > > > > systemctl daemon-reload > > systemctl start systemd-networkd > > networkctl # shows it is working > > > > sed -i 's/^exit 1/####/' debian/tests/test-chkrootkit > > > > debian/tests/test-chkrootkit # still passes. > > Is that the original test or the updated test that passes? > the original > > so i still think there is something different about how debusine presents > > the interfaces from the host. Or something else i dont understand > > > > (it might also have to do with /proc, possibly, but i wonder what "ip link > > show" in a test running in debusine shows?) > > > > (a shorter testcase would be to just run "chkrootkit sniffer" since that is > > what causes the failure) > > As far as I understand it, the original test expects the sniffer check > to find a sniffer (expecting e.g. dhclient), but when running networkd, > it does not actually find one and therefore fails. Is this understanding > correct? yes, exactly > Possibly, the debusine environment runs in an ipv6-only > environment and there chkrootkit could be incapable of locating a > sniffer? Would that be plausible? that could well be it - it's definitely something ive never tested, and i suspect the code wont have been written with ipv6 in mind > > I generally agree that it should be easier to replicate the test > environment that debusine creates. It is not presently well defined. > Given that your updated test now succeeds on debusine, do you think we > might skip investigating this for now and call your solution good > enough? Agreed
