=================================== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-06-25) ===================================
Meeting started by dgilmore at 17:03:52 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-06-25/fesco.2014-06-25-17.03.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (dgilmore, 17:04:01) * #1310 Reconsidering rpcbind's exception allowing it to start by default (dgilmore, 17:05:22) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1310 (dgilmore, 17:05:27) * ACTION: kylem to test and harass steved to find out if things can be made to work for nfsv3 (dgilmore, 17:17:59) * #1311 Disable syscall auditing by default (dgilmore, 17:18:31) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1311 (dgilmore, 17:18:33) * AGREED: turn off syscall auditing for all processes by default. we will reevaluate when we get info from the perf team (6-0-0) (dgilmore, 17:38:39) * #1312 F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF (dgilmore, 17:38:52) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1312 (dgilmore, 17:38:57) * ACTION: dgilmore will look back at last weeks minutes and update the ticket appropriately (dgilmore, 17:40:58) * Next week's chair (dgilmore, 17:41:14) * ACTION: nirik to run next weeks meeting (dgilmore, 17:42:21) * Open Floor (dgilmore, 17:42:27) * jreznik to be election wrangler (dgilmore, 17:57:25) * AGREED: Will finalize current schedule and remove 'no earlier than' from milestones. (+5,0,0) (nirik, 18:04:49) Meeting ended at 18:07:26 UTC. Action Items ------------ * kylem to test and harass steved to find out if things can be made to work for nfsv3 * dgilmore will look back at last weeks minutes and update the ticket appropriately * nirik to run next weeks meeting Action Items, by person ----------------------- * dgilmore * dgilmore will look back at last weeks minutes and update the ticket appropriately * kylem * kylem to test and harass steved to find out if things can be made to work for nfsv3 * nirik * nirik to run next weeks meeting * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * dgilmore (72) * mattdm (37) * nirik (36) * abadger1999 (23) * kylem (23) * mitr (16) * jreznik (16) * pjones (13) * zodbot (7) * amluto (6) * jwb (2) * pingou (1) * mmaslano (0) * sgallagh (0) * t8m (0) -- 17:03:52 <dgilmore> #startmeeting FESCO (2014-06-25) 17:03:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jun 25 17:03:52 2014 UTC. The chair is dgilmore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:03:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:03:55 <nirik> yep 17:03:58 <dgilmore> #meetingname fesco 17:03:58 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:03:58 <dgilmore> #chair abadger1999 dgilmore jwb kylem mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik pjones sgallagh t8m 17:03:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 dgilmore jwb kylem mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik pjones sgallagh t8m 17:04:01 <pingou> mattdm: nice timing :) 17:04:01 <dgilmore> #topic init process 17:04:03 <pjones> hello. 17:04:06 <mattdm> magic! 17:04:06 <mitr> Hello 17:04:08 <kylem> bueller. 17:04:08 <nirik> morning 17:04:26 <abadger1999> Hola 17:04:27 <dgilmore> looks like we have enough folks 17:04:31 <mattdm> I have a hard stop at 10 before the hour, btw. 17:04:33 <dgilmore> lets get started 17:04:40 * jreznik is around 17:04:45 <dgilmore> mattdm: its a short agenda 17:05:22 <dgilmore> #topic #1310 Reconsidering rpcbind's exception allowing it to start by default 17:05:26 <dgilmore> .fesco 1310 17:05:27 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1310 17:05:28 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1310 (Reconsidering rpcbind's exception allowing it to start by default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1310 17:06:55 <dgilmore> not sure where we are with this 17:07:10 <nirik> we were waiting for some feedback from steved.. 17:07:18 <nirik> which doesn't seem to have happened. 17:07:28 <dgilmore> yeah 17:07:48 <nirik> but if it's needed for the client, I'm inclined to leave it autostarting (at least for now) 17:08:00 <dgilmore> i know it is needed for the client 17:08:04 <mattdm> the comment about it being socket-activated seems like a balancing factor. 17:08:13 <abadger1999> s/autostarting/start by default/ ? 17:08:19 <mattdm> that is, it's not _really_ autostarted unless needed? 17:08:27 <dgilmore> The question seems to be can rpcbind be started automatically when you go to mount a nfsv3 share 17:08:28 <abadger1999> I think steved asked whether it would start on-demand. 17:08:37 <mitr> mattdm: From a security/risk limitation perspective socket activation makes no differene. 17:09:09 <mattdm> mitr true. but from a resource consumption one it does. 17:10:11 * abadger1999 notes that socket activation is something that fesco should be addressing in its "autostart" list but currently hasn't set precedent by doing so. 17:10:32 <mattdm> abadger1999: yeah 17:11:15 <dgilmore> I guess someone need to test if rpcbind starts when needed, and if it doesn't can it be made to do so 17:12:03 <mitr> Do I read steved's note right that on the client, we need rpcbind running but not necessarily network reachable? Having the default localhost-only but enabled would be much more attractive to me. 17:12:24 <mattdm> mitr yes, I think that's correct 17:13:07 <amluto> IIUC the client needs nfs-lock.service (unless -o nolock is set), and nfs-lock.service requires rpcbind.service 17:13:19 <dgilmore> So the question is will this type of network activity (remote and local) cause rpcbind to start before its needed? If the answer is yes, then good I will be more than willing to try. 17:13:39 <amluto> so the only likely regression i can think of is that maybe omitting -o nolock behaves better if rpcbind is running (but not nfs-lock.service) than if rpcbind isn't running 17:14:45 <nirik> so, wait another week for steved? assign one of us to just do the testing? 17:15:20 <dgilmore> lets wait one week, for further feedback, if none then we get someone to do some testing and provide it 17:15:55 <abadger1999> And be sure to comment on the ticket what we're wanting to know :-) 17:15:59 <nirik> +1 17:16:07 <dgilmore> abadger1999: already writing it up 17:16:10 <mattdm> okay, sure. doesn't seem urgent 17:16:11 <abadger1999> Cool. 17:16:12 <mattdm> +1 17:16:54 * kylem can do the testing. 17:17:18 <kylem> i can also harass steved tomorrow. 17:17:23 <dgilmore> kylem: okay 17:17:30 <mattdm> kylem: do both! :) 17:17:41 <kylem> i'll update the ticket before the next meeting with whatever the result is. 17:17:57 * jwb shows up 17:17:59 <dgilmore> #action kylem to test and harass steved to find out if things can be made to work for nfsv3 17:17:59 <abadger1999> Thanks 17:18:13 <dgilmore> kylem: thanks i wont add anything to the ticket then 17:18:23 <kylem> ok. no problemo. 17:18:30 <dgilmore> lets move on 17:18:31 <dgilmore> #topic #1311 Disable syscall auditing by default 17:18:31 <dgilmore> .fesco 1311 17:18:33 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1311 17:18:33 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1311 (Disable syscall auditing by default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1311 17:19:31 <dgilmore> are waiting further info here on the actual performance impact 17:19:42 <dgilmore> I think we are waiting further info here on the actual performance impact 17:19:44 <mattdm> I got some feedback from steve grubb 17:19:56 <mattdm> he, in turn, is waiting for the performance team to do some testing 17:20:35 <dgilmore> okay, so wait a week for more feedback? 17:20:41 <dgilmore> or should we wait longer? 17:20:53 <mattdm> I'll ping and ask the rough timeline 17:21:21 <dgilmore> okay lets update the ticket when we know when we should expect feedback so we can skip until then 17:21:36 <mattdm> however, he did say that it's probably going to be on a slower schedule than fedora might like 17:21:57 <kylem> nobody has made a particularly good case why it should stay on... 17:22:12 <kylem> besides "it helps sometimes" 17:22:32 * nirik nods. 17:22:44 <dgilmore> indeed 17:22:47 <kylem> then again, if a handful of ns per syscall is really a performance concern, you can turn it off yourself anyway. 17:22:51 <pjones> with the counterpoint "it clearly hurts sometimes" 17:22:55 <kylem> pjones, indeed. 17:23:01 <mattdm> kylem correct. I think the case is basically: if it's on in fedora, people are more likely to notice when something goes wrong and we get this feedback, which helps for the few people for whom it is vital 17:23:03 <kylem> amluto makes a good point wrt security too. 17:23:03 <pjones> and "it doesn't seem to be maintained, so it will hurt more in the future" 17:23:22 <kylem> (then again, the same is true for a lot of kernel code.) 17:24:03 <amluto> this particular piece of kernel code is unusual in that seccomp can't protect against it 17:24:29 <pjones> kylem: yeah, but not much of the code you're referencing is on /every/ syscall path 17:24:34 <mattdm> And, from my point of view... I appreciate that role of fedora in general, but I don't think that very many people are actually using it in fedora in a way that really helps 17:24:38 <kylem> indeed. frankly, i turn it off anyway, so i'm +1. 17:24:45 <kylem> ;-) 17:24:46 <mitr> pjones: The 32-on-64 case is AFAIK being actively addressed right now; the code is maintained but nobody is actively looking for bugs every week 17:25:00 <nirik> if we want to turn it off, we should be clear which way we want to turn it off. ;) 17:25:02 <pjones> mitr: well, that's some consolation. 17:25:30 <amluto> mitr: what 32-on-64 case? is there yet another bug i don't know about? 17:25:35 <mitr> nirik: yeah; I'd be fairly strongly against kicking it out of the kernel; the default rule to disable it for all processes would be quite fine 17:25:50 * nirik nods. Just need to be clear. 17:25:58 <mitr> amluto: I'd expect everything to be discussed on linux-audit (but I'm not subscribed there) 17:26:03 <abadger1999> mitr: +1 17:26:44 <mitr> I'm still not _thrilled_ with disabling it, and dwalsh does say that it is somewhat useful, but nobody has been too strongly fighting for leaving it on either, so... 17:27:26 * nirik is ok with the disable for all processes config option. 17:27:34 * pjones is too 17:28:53 <mattdm> Is there a way we can turn it off in the cloud image which allows auditd to not be installed/running? 17:29:21 <jwb> isn't that what nirik just mentioned? 17:29:27 <mitr> mattdm: You need to run an auditctl command (i.e. have the package installed) but that doesn't require auditd running 17:29:41 <dgilmore> im okay with turning off for all processes, especially if we document a way to turn it on for the use cases where it is useful 17:29:48 <mitr> mattdm: That might be deviating from the default setup somewhat but AFAIK is fairly feasible 17:31:07 <amluto> mattdm: if nothing has ever enabled audit (that is, auditctl -e 1 or the equivalent never happens after boot), then syscall auditing will be off 17:31:17 <amluto> I think that, if auditd is not installed, then that's what happens 17:31:59 <mattdm> Okay -- I thought someone told me otherwise. But I may just be confused. This is definitely not an area of expertise for me -- we never had to audit things at this level at my sysadmin jobs :) 17:32:21 <dgilmore> should we vote on something or wait? 17:32:36 <pjones> mitr: that might be an argument for splitting the package into a -daemon and -tools or somesuch 17:32:47 <kylem> well, i assume we're not going to change f20, so i don't see harm in deferring the vote another week for rawhide. 17:33:02 <dgilmore> we wont change f20 17:33:15 <mitr> dgilmore: If we could expect to hear back from the perf team soon enough, I don't see harm in waiting (but then I don't see much harm in just flipping it now and perhaps flipping it back later) 17:33:18 <dgilmore> lets see if some magic data comes back soon 17:33:28 <mitr> pjones: It might; I'm not so intent on saving every 100 kb 17:33:40 <mattdm> mitr, pjones yes, it is small. 17:34:07 <abadger1999> mitr: I feel the same as you. 17:35:04 <mattdm> I'm +1 to mitr's parenthetical proposal 17:35:24 <mattdm> flip it now, and leave open the possibility of flipping it back if more data comes in 17:35:32 <abadger1999> +1 to mitr's proposal as well. 17:35:42 * nirik is +1 too 17:35:53 <mitr> Count me as +1 to either :) 17:36:36 <dgilmore> #proposal turn off syscall auditing for all processes by default. we will reevaluate when we get infor from the perf team 17:36:38 <pjones> Might be worth flipping it now and seeing if we get any anecdata in return. 17:36:46 <pjones> dgilmore: +1 17:36:47 <dgilmore> #proposal turn off syscall auditing for all processes by default. we will reevaluate when we get info from the perf team 17:36:56 <mattdm> dgilmore: +1 17:37:00 * dgilmore fixes typo 17:37:02 <nirik> dgilmore: +1 17:37:04 <abadger1999> dgilmore: +1 17:37:37 <dgilmore> since mitr did not actually put up a proposal 17:37:52 <dgilmore> we need one more +1 i think 17:37:57 <mitr> dgilmore: +1 17:38:03 <dgilmore> though i am +1 to my proposal 17:38:39 <dgilmore> #agreed turn off syscall auditing for all processes by default. we will reevaluate when we get info from the perf team (6-0-0) 17:38:52 <dgilmore> #topic #1312 F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF 17:38:57 <dgilmore> .fesco 1312 17:38:57 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1312 17:38:57 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1312 (F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1312 17:39:18 <dgilmore> didnt we approve this last week? 17:39:27 <nirik> yep 17:39:35 <mattdm> yeah there was something about asking the dnf maintainers here to talk more 17:39:44 <mattdm> but I don't actually have anything more to add :) 17:39:52 <mattdm> I said what I think 17:40:08 <mattdm> and after the devel mailing list I think it could use a nice calm rest 17:40:31 <dgilmore> okay, so lets get the ticket updated, actually invite dnf guys if we have questions for them 17:40:58 <dgilmore> #action dgilmore will look back at last weeks minutes and update the ticket appropriately 17:41:14 <dgilmore> #topic Next week's chair 17:41:24 <dgilmore> who wants to run the meeting next week? 17:41:33 <nirik> I've not done it in a while, I can 17:42:21 <dgilmore> #action nirik to run next weeks meeting 17:42:27 <dgilmore> #topic Open Floor 17:42:32 <mattdm> So.... https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1317 17:42:36 <dgilmore> anyone have anything? 17:42:39 <mattdm> the election... 17:42:51 <nirik> yeah, we should move that forward 17:42:56 <mattdm> Last week, sgallagh tasked me with sending out an announcement as FPL 17:43:15 * kylem will be without internet in the wild and miss the meetings in 2 weeks and 3 weeks. apologies in advance. 17:43:15 <mattdm> but I'd like the details of what exactly is to be announced worked out :) 17:44:10 <mattdm> I'm happy to help and to send messages and lend voice and etc., but would someone else be able to drive this? 17:44:14 <nirik> proposal: nominations from announcement time to 2014-07-07, election from 2014-07-07 to 2014-07-14 17:44:28 <kylem> what is everyones thoughts about me stepping down to let notting's seat be re-elected? 17:44:40 <nirik> kylem: you can do so if you like. ;) 17:44:49 <mattdm> kylem If you want to, do it sooner rather than later :) 17:44:50 <abadger1999> yeah, entirely your choice to me. 17:44:55 <dgilmore> kylem: your choice 17:45:10 <pjones> what they all said. 17:45:11 <kylem> ok. i'll do that then. ;-) 17:45:21 <nirik> ok, so 3 seats? 17:45:23 <pjones> Alright, then we're electing 3 seats. 17:45:39 <kylem> sounds right to me. 17:45:48 <pjones> nirik: +1 to that timeline 17:45:58 <dgilmore> nirik: +1 17:46:04 <kylem> +1 17:46:29 <nirik> the last election we didn't do a questionare... we could do a townhall tho if desired. Not sure how usefull they have been. 17:46:38 <abadger1999> nirik: +1 17:46:58 <mattdm> nirik We should have some standard questions for the questionnaire 17:47:46 <mitr> nirik: The townhalls were always useful to me; knowing about a long-term contributor doesn't always mean knowing their thoughts on the questions of the day. 17:48:13 <nirik> mattdm: we could, but in the past we asked for people to ask, and got very little response... 17:48:16 <mattdm> I can be +1 to the timeline, but it might be nice to have another week for publicity and letting potential candidates think about it. 17:48:19 <nirik> we could do a townhall next week? 17:48:23 <dgilmore> i know last election cycle the townhalls didnt work out 17:48:26 <mattdm> nirik: yeah that's a whole problem with the whole thing. 17:48:34 <dgilmore> due to devconf and people travelling 17:48:37 <mattdm> ftr I tried to give some but I put them in the wrong place :) 17:49:04 <mattdm> in any case, I need to go. 17:49:47 <dgilmore> thanks mattdm 17:49:49 <kylem> thanks matt. 17:49:54 <nirik> ok. 17:50:12 <dgilmore> should we reuse the questions from last cycle? 17:50:33 <jreznik> any volunteer for elections wrangler? while talking about elections, maybe I missed it 17:50:55 <dgilmore> jreznik: not that I know of 17:51:05 <nirik> I've not seen one, but would be great to have one to nag everyone to keep things moving 17:52:17 <dgilmore> anyone want to volunteer to run the elections? 17:52:19 <jreznik> for special elections, it's maybe not as much needed as for standard ones 17:52:23 <dgilmore> abadger1999: ^ 17:52:38 <jreznik> but it's always to have someone you know he's responsible for to avoid mess 17:53:08 * abadger1999 doesn't want to but is willing to handle the technical aspects (setting up the electrion in the election app and getting the results to the person making the announcement) 17:53:20 <abadger1999> Since I'm not running I can do that :-) 17:54:11 <dgilmore> abadger1999: so you will be the wrangler? 17:54:49 * dgilmore needs to run in a minute 17:54:50 <abadger1999> dgilmore: no. I'll handle the technical side of it. 17:54:57 <dgilmore> abadger1999: okay just clarifying 17:55:10 <abadger1999> not the schedule/townhall/etc side. 17:55:36 <jreznik> I can help with schedule, as I always do it 17:55:40 <dgilmore> so we need a wrangler, we need to set a schedule and we need to work out questionaire, townhall details 17:56:13 <jreznik> but I never did that questionaire/townhall stuff 17:56:28 <dgilmore> jreznik: want to learn?> 17:57:07 <jreznik> dgilmore: why not? it's probably going to be easier if I do it whole with abadger1999 to setup bits 17:57:25 <dgilmore> #info jreznik to be election wrangler 17:57:42 <dgilmore> anything else we need to sort out here today? 17:57:46 <jreznik> what's the timeframe for it? asap? 17:57:55 <dgilmore> jreznik: yep 17:58:37 * nirik notes we sort of agreed on a schedule above... although mattdm wanted perhaps another week of lead time 17:59:06 <dgilmore> nirik: can you take over the last bit of the meeting please, i really need to run 17:59:23 <jreznik> nirik: ah, ok I see it 17:59:40 <nirik> dgilmore: sure. I think we are almost done... 17:59:45 <nirik> any other open floor business? 17:59:52 <jreznik> I'll take a look tomorrow, will update the ticket with proposal 18:00:01 <jreznik> nirik: one topic - schedule 18:00:04 <abadger1999> another week would be fine for me too. 18:00:05 <dgilmore> jreznik: nirik: thanks 18:00:15 * nirik would be ok moving the elections out another week too. 18:00:21 <kylem> indeed, i'm fine with pushing all dates in mattdm's original proposal out a week 18:00:42 <jreznik> we are still in "no earlier than" in the schedule and folks started pinging me if change freeze/branch is happening for real or they have more time 18:01:01 <nirik> jreznik: Yeah, I thought we finalized that a while ago, but perhaps I am wrong. 18:01:07 <mitr> jreznik: prooposal: s/no earlier than //g 18:01:12 <nirik> mitr: +1 18:01:28 <jreznik> it makes sense 18:01:32 <abadger1999> at least for change freeze and branch that makes sense. 18:02:08 <jreznik> abadger1999: well, we can remove "no earlier than" and continue with standard slipage from this point 18:02:19 <abadger1999> really.. we could slip no matter what the schedule says so "no earlier than" is just telling people that hte schedule is more fluid than normal this time around. 18:02:28 <abadger1999> jreznik: yeah. agreed. 18:02:46 <abadger1999> mitr: +1 to your proposal 18:02:47 <jreznik> maybe I just missed we agreed it's really that final, I consider it as final, just want final confirmation 18:03:38 <nirik> more votes please? thats +3 assuming mitr is for his proposal. ;) 18:03:45 * mitr is +1 for the record 18:03:54 <kylem> +1 18:04:00 <pjones> eh, +1 I guess. 18:04:49 <nirik> #agreed Will finalize current schedule and remove 'no earlier than' from milestones. (+5,0,0) 18:04:55 <nirik> anything else for open floor? 18:05:04 <jreznik> thanks! 18:06:30 <nirik> ok, if nothing else will close meeting in a random indeterminate time around a minute from now. 18:07:08 <abadger1999> :-) 18:07:11 <kylem> heh 18:07:23 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone! 18:07:26 <nirik> #endmeeting
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
