** Description changed: [Availability] - The package qrtr is already in Ubuntu universe. - The package qrtr build for the architectures it is designed to work on. + The package protection-domain-mapper is already in Ubuntu universe. + The package protection-domain-mapper build for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: any, verified as working on arm64 - Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qrtr + Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper [Rationale] RULE: There must be a certain level of demand for the package - - The package qrtr-tools is required in Ubuntu main for ubuntu-desktop - on ARM64, as it enables power-indicator (among other things) on most - Windows on Arm laptops (qcom based laptops ~7 SKUs and more coming). - There is no other way to implement this + - The package protection-domain-mapper is required in Ubuntu main for + ubuntu-desktop on ARM64, as it enables power-indicator (among other + things) on most Windows on Arm laptops (qcom based laptops ~7 SKUs + and more coming). There is no other way to implement this. - RULE: Sometimes there are other/better ways, often are achieved by using a - RULE: library with similar functionality that is more commonly used and - RULE: thereby already in main or a better candidate to promote. - RULE: Reducing the set of supported software in Ubuntu helps to focus on the - RULE: right things, otherwise Ubuntu developers will be consumed by updating - RULE: many variations of the same - wasting valuable time that could be better - RULE: spent elsewhere. - RULE: If there are other packages in the archive that are close, but unable to - RULE: address the problem you might spend some time explaining what exists and - RULE: why it isn't a sufficient alternative. - TODO: - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or - TODO: should go universe->main instead of this. + - protection-domain-mapper depends on qrtr for library and a systemd + service it provides. - RULE: Reviews will take some time. Also the potential extra work out of review - RULE: feedback from either MIR-team and/or security-team will take time. - RULE: For better prioritization it is quite helpful to clearly state the - RULE: target release and set a milestone to the bug task. - RULE: When doing so do not describe what you "wish" or "would like to have". - RULE: Only milestones that are sufficiently well-founded and related to - RULE: major releases will be considered - TODO-A: - The package TBDSRC is required in Ubuntu main no later than TBD - TODO-A: due to TBD - TODO-B: - It would be great and useful to community/processes to have the - TODO-B: package TBD in Ubuntu main, but there is no definitive deadline. + - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main + or should go universe->main instead of this. As this is the only + implementation of talking to the qcom hardware. + + - The package protection-domain-mapper is required in Ubuntu main no + later than today due to Mantic release, if we want to have the best + impression of Ubuntu Desktop in the live session on x13s. + + - If that fails, having it fixed as SRU is the next best option. [Security] - RULE: The security history and the current state of security issues in the - RULE: package must allow us to support the package for at least 9 months (120 - RULE: for LTS+ESM support) without exposing its users to an inappropriate level - RULE: of security risks. This requires checking of several things: - RULE: - Search in the National Vulnerability Database using the PKG as keyword - RULE: https://cve.mitre.org/cve/search_cve_list.html - RULE: - check OSS security mailing list (feed into search engine - RULE: 'site:www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security <pkgname>') - RULE: - Ubuntu CVE Tracker - RULE: https://ubuntu.com/security/cve?package=<source-package-name> - RULE: - Debian Security Tracker - RULE: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/<source-package-name> - TODO-A: - Had #TBD security issues in the past - TODO-A: - TBD links to such security issues in trackers - TODO-A: - TBD to any context that shows how these issues got handled in - TODO-A: the past - TODO-B: - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past - RULE: - Check for security relevant binaries, services and behavior. - RULE: If any are present, this requires a more in-depth security review. - RULE: Demonstrating that common isolation/risk-mitigation patterns are used - RULE: will help to raise confidence. For example a service running as root - RULE: open to the network will need to be considered very carefully. The same - RULE: service dropping the root permissions after initial initialization, - RULE: using various systemd isolation features and having a default active - RULE: apparmor profile is much less concerning and can speed up acceptance. - RULE: This helps Ubuntu, but you are encouraged to consider working with - RULE: Debian and upstream to get those security features used at wide scale. - TODO: - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries - TODO-A: - no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` - TODO-B: - Binary TBD in sbin is no problem because TBD - TODO-A: - Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs - TODO-B: - Package does install services, timers or recurring jobs - TODO-B: TBD (list services, timers, jobs) - TODO: - Security has been kept in mind and common isolation/risk-mitigation - TODO: patterns are in place utilizing the following features: + - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past. This is a + reference open source implementation of these tools, which otherwise + are used on qcom Android devices + + - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries no executables in `/sbin` and + `/usr/sbin` + + - Package does install services: pd-mapper.service & qrtr-ns.service + which allow runtime access to the qcom hardware which are run as + root + + - Security has been kept in mind and common isolation/risk-mitigation + patterns are in place utilizing the following features: TODO: TBD (add details and links/examples about things like dropping TODO: permissions, using temporary environments, restricted users/groups, TODO: seccomp, systemd isolation features, apparmor, ...) - TODO-A: - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). - TODO-B: - Packages open privileged ports (ports < 1024), but they have - TODO-B: a reason to do so (TBD) - TODO-A: - Package does not expose any external endpoints - TODO-B: - Package does not expose an external endpoint, it is - TODO-B: TBD endpoint + TBD purpose - TODO: - Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software - TODO: (filters, scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...) + + - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). + - Package does not expose any external endpoints + + - Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software + (filters, scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...) [Quality assurance - function/usage] - RULE: - After installing the package it must be possible to make it working with - RULE: a reasonable effort of configuration and documentation reading. - TODO-A: - The package works well right after install - TODO-B: - The package needs post install configuration or reading of - TODO-B: documentation, there isn't a safe default because TBD + + - The package works well right after install, i.e. power indicator + straight away starts to show accurate battery information + [Quality assurance - maintenance] - RULE: - To support a package, we must be reasonably convinced that upstream - RULE: supports and cares for the package. - RULE: - The status of important bugs in Debian, Ubuntu and upstream's bug - RULE: tracking systems must be evaluated. Important bugs must be pointed out - RULE: and discussed in the MIR report. - TODO: - The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does - TODO: not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs - TODO: - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/TBDSRC/+bug - TODO: - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=TBDSRC - TODO: - Upstream's bug tracker, e.g., GitHub Issues - TODO: - The package has important open bugs, listing them: TBD - TODO-A: - The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support - TODO-B: - The package does deal with exotic hardware, it is present at TBD - TODO-B: to be able to test, fix and verify bugs + - The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does + not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs + - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper/+bug + https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qrtr/+bug + - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=protection-domain-mapper https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=qrtr + - Upstream's bug tracker, e.g., GitHub Issues + + - The package has important open bugs, listing them: + https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper/+bug/2038944 + https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1045729 upstream fix at https://github.com/andersson/qrtr/pull/24/files + + - The package does deal with exotic hardware, it is present at Lenovo + X13s to be able to test, fix and verify bugs as many users at + Canonical and Community have it. And it is available for purchase. [Quality assurance - testing] - RULE: - The package must include a non-trivial test suite - RULE: - it should run at package build and fail the build if broken - TODO-A: - The package runs a test suite on build time, if it fails - TODO-A: it makes the build fail, link to build log TBD - TODO-B: - The package does not run a test at build time because TBD - RULE: - The package should, but is not required to, also contain - RULE: non-trivial autopkgtest(s). - TODO-A: - The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on - TODO-A: this TBD list of architectures, link to test logs TBD - TODO-B: - The package does not run an autopkgtest because TBD + - The package does not run a test at build time because adequate + testing requires exotic hardware & specifically kernel driver loaded - RULE: - existing but failing tests that shall be handled as "ok to fail" - RULE: need to be explained along the test logs below - TODO-A: - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now - TODO-B: - The package does have failing autopkgtests tests right now, but since - TODO-B: they always failed they are handled as "ignored failure", this is - TODO-B: ok because TBD + - The package does not run an autopkgtest because testing requires + exotic hardware & specifically kernel driver loaded. - RULE: - If no build tests nor autopkgtests are included, and/or if the package - RULE: requires specific hardware to perform testing, the subscribed team - RULE: must provide a written test plan in a comment to the MIR bug, and - RULE: commit to running that test either at each upload of the package or - RULE: at least once each release cycle. In the comment to the MIR bug, - RULE: please link to the codebase of these tests (scripts or doc of manual - RULE: steps) and attach a full log of these test runs. This is meant to - RULE: assess their validity (e.g. not just superficial). - RULE: If possible such things should stay in universe. Sometimes that is - RULE: impossible due to the way how features/plugins/dependencies work - RULE: but if you are going to ask for promotion of something untestable - RULE: please outline why it couldn't provide its value (e.g. by splitting - RULE: binaries) to users from universe. - RULE: This is a balance that is hard to strike well, the request is that all - RULE: options have been exploited before giving up. Look for more details - RULE: and backgrounds https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/30 - RULE: Just like in the SRU process it is worth to understand what the - RULE: consequences a regression (due to a test miss) would be. Therefore - RULE: if being untestable we ask to outline what consequences this would - RULE: have for the given package. And let us be honest, even if you can - RULE: test you are never sure you will be able to catch all potential - RULE: regressions. So this is mostly to force self-awareness of the owning - RULE: team than to make a decision on. - TODO: - The package can not be well tested at build or autopkgtest time - TODO: because TBD. To make up for that: - TODO-A: - We have access to such hardware in the team - TODO-B: - We have allocated budget to get this hardware, but it is not here - TODO-B: yet - TODO-C: - We have checked with solutions-qa and will use their hardware - TODO-C: through testflinger - TODO-D: - We have checked with other team TBD and will use their hardware - TODO-D: through TBD (eg. MAAS) - TODO-E: - We have checked and found a simulator which covers this case - TODO-E: sufficiently for testing, our plan to use it is TBD - TODO-F: - We have engaged with the upstream community and due to that - TODO-F: can tests new package builds via TBD - TODO-G: - We have engaged with our user community and due to that - TODO-G: can tests new package builds via TBD - TODO-H: - We have engaged with the hardware manufacturer and made an - TODO-H: agreement to test new builds via TBD - TODO-A-H: - Based on that access outlined above, here are the details of the - TODO-A-H: test plan/automation TBD (e.g. script or repo) and (if already - TODO-A-H: possible) example output of a test run: TBD (logs). - TODO-A-H: We will execute that test plan - TODO-A-H1: on-uploads - TODO-A-H2: regularly (TBD details like frequency: monthly, infra: jira-url) - TODO-X: - We have exhausted all options, there really is no feasible way - TODO-X: to test or recreate this. We are aware of the extra implications - TODO-X: and duties this has for our team (= help SEG and security on - TODO-X: servicing this package, but also more effort on any of your own - TODO-X: bug triage and fixes). - TODO-X: Due to TBD there also is no way to provide this to users from - TODO-X: universe. - TODO-X: Due to the nature, integration and use cases of the package the - TODO-X: consequences of a regression that might slip through most likely - TODO-X: would include - TODO-X: - TBD - TODO-X: - TBD - TODO-X: - TBD + - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now - RULE: - In some cases a solution that is about to be promoted consists of - RULE: several very small libraries and one actual application uniting them - RULE: to achieve something useful. This is rather common in the go/rust space. - RULE: In that case often these micro-libs on their own can and should only - RULE: provide low level unit-tests. But more complex autopkgtests make no - RULE: sense on that level. Therefore in those cases one might want to test on - RULE: the solution level. - RULE: - Process wise MIR-requesting teams can ask (on the bug) for this - RULE: special case to apply for a given case, which reduces the test - RULE: constraints on the micro libraries but in return increases the - RULE: requirements for the test of the actual app/solution. - RULE: - Since this might promote micro-lib packages to main with less than - RULE: the common level of QA any further MIRed program using them will have - RULE: to provide the same amount of increased testing. - TODO: - This package is minimal and will be tested in a more wide reaching - TODO: solution context TBD, details about this testing are here TBD + - The package can not be well tested at build or autopkgtest time + because it requires exotic hardware to test. To make up for that: + - We have access to such hardware in the team (foundations & kernel) + + - We will add a run-once manual test case to iso tracker to ensure + that "power indicator shows battery indicator %") + + - We will execute this test case on every upload of + protection-domain-mapper qrtr and the underlying kernel, as well + as image milestone testing + + - qrtr package is minimal and will be tested in a more wide + reaching solution context protection-device-mapper, that is + causing battery indicator to work. [Quality assurance - packaging] - RULE: - The package uses a debian/watch file whenever possible. In cases where - RULE: this is not possible (e.g. native packages), the package should either - RULE: provide a debian/README.source file or a debian/watch file (with - RULE: comments only) providing clear instructions on how to generate the - RULE: source tar file. - TODO-A: - debian/watch is present and works - TODO-B: - debian/watch is not present, instead it has TBD - TODO-C: - debian/watch is not present because it is a native package - RULE: - The package should define the correct "Maintainer:" field in - RULE: debian/control. This needs to be updated, using `update-maintainer` - RULE: whenever any Ubuntu delta is applied to the package, as suggested by - RULE: dpkg (LP: #1951988) - TODO: - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field + - debian/watch is present and works - RULE: - It is often useful to run `lintian --pedantic` on the package to spot - RULE: the most common packaging issues in advance - RULE: - Non-obvious or non-properly commented lintian overrides should be - RULE: explained - TODO: - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors - TODO: - Please link to a recent build log of the package <TBD> - TODO: - Please attach the full output you have got from - TODO: `lintian --pedantic` as an extra post to this bug. - TODO-A: - Lintian overrides are not present - TODO-B: - Lintian overrides are present, but ok because TBD + - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field - RULE: - The package should not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. - RULE: That currently includes package dependencies on Python2 (without - RULE: providing Python3 packages), and packages depending on GTK2. - TODO: - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. - TODO: - This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies + - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors - RULE: - Debconf questions should not bother the default user too much - TODO-A: - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf - TODO-A: questions higher than medium - TODO-B: - The package will not be installed by default + https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=qrtr&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on<_pedantic=on<_experimental=on<_overridden=on<_masked=on<_classification=on&lintian_tag=#all - RULE: - The source packaging (in debian/) should be reasonably easy to - RULE: understand and maintain. - TODO-A: - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules TBD - TODO-B: - Packaging is complex, but that is ok because TBD + lack of manpages, lack of systemd hardening features in systemd unit + + https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=protection- + domain- + mapper&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on<_pedantic=on<_experimental=on<_overridden=on<_masked=on<_classification=on&lintian_tag=#all + + lack of manpage, lack of systemd hardening features in systemd unit + + - Please link to a recent build log of the package + + https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qrtr/1.0-2 + + https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper/1.0-4 + + - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted + packages. + + - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf + questions higher than medium + + - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules + + https://salsa.debian.org/DebianOnMobile-team/protection-domain- + mapper/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/rules + + https://salsa.debian.org/DebianOnMobile- + team/qrtr/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/rules [UI standards] - TODO-A: - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) - TODO-B: - Application is end-user facing, Translation is present, via standard - TODO-B: intltool/gettext or similar build and runtime internationalization - TODO-B: system see TBD - TODO-A: - End-user applications that ships a standard conformant desktop file, - TODO-A: see TBD - TODO-B: - End-user applications without desktop file, not needed because TBD + - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) [Dependencies] - RULE: - In case of alternative the preferred alternative must be in main. - RULE: - Build(-only) dependencies can be in universe - RULE: - If there are further dependencies they need a separate MIR discussion - RULE: (this can be a separate bug or another task on the main MIR bug) - TODO-A: - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main - TODO-B: - There are further dependencies that are not yet in main, MIR for them - TODO-B: is at TBD - TODO-C: - There are further dependencies that are not yet in main, the MIR - TODO-C: process for them is handled as part of this bug here. + - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main [Standards compliance] - RULE: - Major violations should be documented and justified. - RULE: - FHS: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml - RULE: - Debian Policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ - TODO-A: - This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy - TODO-B: - This package violates FHS or Debian Policy, reasons for that are TBD + - This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy [Maintenance/Owner] - RULE: The package must have an acceptable level of maintenance corresponding - RULE: to its complexity: - RULE: - All packages must have a designated "owning" team, regardless of - RULE: complexity. - RULE: This requirement of an owning-team comes in two aspects: - RULE: - A case needs to have a team essentially saying "yes we will own that" - RULE: to enter the MIR process. Usually that is implied by team members - RULE: filing MIR requests having the backup by their management for the - RULE: long term commitment this implies. - RULE: - A community driven MIR request might be filed to show the use case, - RULE: but then, as a first step, needs to get a team agreeing to own - RULE: it before the case can be processed further. - RULE: If unsure which teams to consider have a look at the current mapping - RULE: http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/m-r-package-team-mapping.html - RULE: - The package needs a bug subscriber before it can be promoted to main. - RULE: Strictly speaking that subscription can therefore wait until the - RULE: moment of the actual promotion by an archive admin. But it is - RULE: strongly recommended to subscribe early, as the owning team will get - RULE a preview of the to-be-expected incoming bugs later on. - RULE: - Simple packages (e.g. language bindings, simple Perl modules, small - RULE: command-line programs, etc.) might not need very much maintenance - RULE: effort, and if they are maintained well in Debian we can just keep them - RULE: synced. They still need a subscribing team to handle bugs, FTBFS and - RULE: tests - RULE: - More complex packages will usually need a developer or team of - RULE: developers paying attention to their bugs, whether that be in Ubuntu - RULE: or elsewhere (often Debian). Packages that deliver major new headline - RULE: features in Ubuntu need to have commitment from Ubuntu developers - RULE: willing to spend substantial time on them. - TODO-A: - The owning team will be TBD and I have their acknowledgement for - TODO-A: that commitment - TODO-B: - I Suggest the owning team to be TBD - TODO-A: - The future owning team is already subscribed to the package - TODO-B: - The future owning team is not yet subscribed, but will subscribe to - TODO-B: the package before promotion - RULE: - Responsibilities implied by static builds promoted to main, which is - RULE: not a recommended but a common case with golang and rust packages. - RULE: - the security team will track CVEs for all vendored/embedded sources in main - RULE: - the security team will provide updates to main for all `golang-*-dev` - RULE: packages - RULE: - the security team will provide updates to main for non-vendored - RULE: dependencies as per normal procedures (including e.g., - RULE: sponsoring/coordinating uploads from teams/upstream projects, etc) - RULE: - the security team will perform no-change-rebuilds for all packages - RULE: listing an CVE-fixed package as Built-Using and coordinate testing - RULE: with the owning teams responsible for the rebuilt packages - RULE: - for packages that build using any `golang-*-dev` packages: - RULE: - the owning team must state their commitment to test - RULE: no-change-rebuilds triggered by a dependent library/compiler and to - RULE: fix any issues found for the lifetime of the release (including ESM - RULE: when included) - RULE: - the owning team must provide timely testing of no-change-rebuilds - RULE: from the security team, fixing the rebuilt package as necessary - RULE: - for packages that build with approved vendored code: - RULE: - the owning team must state their commitment to provide updates to - RULE: the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime of - RULE: the release (including ESM when included) - RULE: - the security team will alert the owning team of issues that may - RULE: affect their vendored code - RULE: - the owning team will provide timely, high quality updates for the - RULE: security team to sponsor to fix issues in the affected vendored code - RULE: - if subsequent uploads add new vendored components or dependencies - RULE: these have to be reviewed and agreed by the security team. - RULE: - Such updates in the project might be trivial, but imply that a - RULE: dependency for e.g. a CVE fix will be moved to a new major version. - RULE: Being vendored that does gladly at least not imply incompatibility - RULE: issues with other packages or the SRU policy. But it might happen - RULE: that this triggers either: - RULE: a) The need to adapt the current version of the main package and/or - RULE: other vendored dependencies to work with the new dependency - RULE: b) The need to backport the fix in the dependency as the main - RULE: package will functionally only work well with the older version - RULE: c) The need to backport the fix in the dependency, as it would imply - RULE: requiring a newer toolchain to be buildable that isn't available - RULE: in the target release. - RULE: - The rust ecosystem currently isn't yet considered stable enough for - RULE: classic lib dependencies and transitions in main; therefore the - RULE: expectation for those packages is to vendor (and own/test) all - RULE: dependencies (except those provided by the rust runtime itself). - RULE: This implies that all the rules for vendored builds always - RULE: apply to them. In addition: - RULE: - The rules and checks for rust based packages are preliminary and might - RULE: change over time as the ecosystem matures and while - RULE: processing the first few rust based packages. - RULE: - It is expected rust builds will use dh-cargo so that a later switch - RULE: to non vendored dependencies isn't too complex (e.g. it is likely - RULE: that over time more common libs shall become stable and then archive - RULE: packages will be used to build). - RULE: - Right now that tooling to get a Cargo.lock that will include internal - RULE: vendored dependencies isn't in place yet (expect a dh-cargo change - RULE: later). Until it is available, as a fallback one can scan the - RULE: directory at build time and let it be generated in debian/rules. - RULE: An example might look like: - RULE: debian/rules: - RULE: override_dh_auto_test: - RULE: CARGO_HOME=debian /usr/share/cargo/bin/cargo test --offline - RULE: debian/<pkg>.install: - RULE: Cargo.lock /usr/share/doc/<pkg> - RULE: debian/config.toml - RULE: # Use the vendorized sources to produce the Cargo.lock file. This - RULE: # can be performed by pointing $CARGO_HOME to the path containing - RULE: # this file. - RULE: [source] - RULE: [source.my-vendor-source] - RULE: directory = "vendor" - RULE: [source.crates-io] - RULE: replace-with = "my-vendor-source" + - The owning team will be kernel-packages and I have their + acknowledgement for that commitment - RULE: - All vendored dependencies (no matter what language) shall have a - RULE: way to be refreshed - TODO-A: - This does not use static builds - TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications by a static build and - TODO-B: commits to test no-change-rebuilds and to fix any issues found for the - TODO-B: lifetime of the release (including ESM) + - This does not use static builds - TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code - TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications of vendored code and (as - TODO-B: alerted by the security team) commits to provide updates and backports - TODO-B: to the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime - TODO-B: of the release (including ESM). + - This does not use vendored code - TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code - TODO-B: - This package uses vendored go code tracked in go.sum as shipped in the - TODO-B: package, refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source - TODO-C: - This package uses vendored rust code tracked in Cargo.lock as shipped, - TODO-C: in the package (at /usr/share/doc/<pkgname>/Cargo.lock - might be - TODO-C: compressed), refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source - TODO-D: - This package uses vendored code, refreshing that code is outlined - TODO-D: in debian/README.source + - This does not use vendored code - TODO-A: - This package is not rust based - TODO-B: - This package is rust based and vendors all non language-runtime - TODO-B: dependencies + - This package is not rust based - RULE: - if there has been an archive test rebuild that has occurred more recently - RULE: than the last upload, the package must have rebuilt successfully - TODO-A: - The package has been built in the archive more recently than the last - TODO-A: test rebuild - TODO-B: - The package successfully built during the most recent test rebuild - TODO-C: - The package was test rebuilt in PPA or sbuild recently (provide link/logs) + - The package successfully built during the most recent test rebuild [Background information] - RULE: - The package descriptions should explain the general purpose and context - RULE: of the package. Additional explanations/justifications should be done in - RULE: the MIR report. - RULE: - If the package was renamed recently, or has a different upstream name, - RULE: this needs to be explained in the MIR report. - TODO: The Package description explains the package well - TODO: Upstream Name is TBD - TODO: Link to upstream project TBD - TODO: TBD (any further background that might be helpful + The Package description explains the package well + Upstream Name matches package name + + Link to upstream project are: https://github.com/andersson/qrtr and + https://github.com/andersson/pd-mapper + + This package unblocks announcement of Ubuntu Desktop on ARM64 Laptops + for the first time, on an arm64 laptop from a tier 1 OEM available for + sale now.
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel Packages, which is subscribed to qrtr in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2038942 Title: [MIR] protection-domain-mapper Status in protection-domain-mapper package in Ubuntu: New Status in qrtr package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: [Availability] The package protection-domain-mapper is already in Ubuntu universe. The package protection-domain-mapper build for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: any, verified as working on arm64 Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper [Rationale] RULE: There must be a certain level of demand for the package - The package protection-domain-mapper is required in Ubuntu main for ubuntu-desktop on ARM64, as it enables power-indicator (among other things) on most Windows on Arm laptops (qcom based laptops ~7 SKUs and more coming). There is no other way to implement this. - protection-domain-mapper depends on qrtr for library and a systemd service it provides. - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or should go universe->main instead of this. As this is the only implementation of talking to the qcom hardware. - The package protection-domain-mapper is required in Ubuntu main no later than today due to Mantic release, if we want to have the best impression of Ubuntu Desktop in the live session on x13s. - If that fails, having it fixed as SRU is the next best option. [Security] - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past. This is a reference open source implementation of these tools, which otherwise are used on qcom Android devices - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` - Package does install services: pd-mapper.service & qrtr-ns.service which allow runtime access to the qcom hardware which are run as root - Security has been kept in mind and common isolation/risk-mitigation patterns are in place utilizing the following features: TODO: TBD (add details and links/examples about things like dropping TODO: permissions, using temporary environments, restricted users/groups, TODO: seccomp, systemd isolation features, apparmor, ...) - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). - Package does not expose any external endpoints - Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software (filters, scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...) [Quality assurance - function/usage] - The package works well right after install, i.e. power indicator straight away starts to show accurate battery information [Quality assurance - maintenance] - The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper/+bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qrtr/+bug - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=protection-domain-mapper https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=qrtr - Upstream's bug tracker, e.g., GitHub Issues - The package has important open bugs, listing them: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper/+bug/2038944 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1045729 upstream fix at https://github.com/andersson/qrtr/pull/24/files - The package does deal with exotic hardware, it is present at Lenovo X13s to be able to test, fix and verify bugs as many users at Canonical and Community have it. And it is available for purchase. [Quality assurance - testing] - The package does not run a test at build time because adequate testing requires exotic hardware & specifically kernel driver loaded - The package does not run an autopkgtest because testing requires exotic hardware & specifically kernel driver loaded. - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now - The package can not be well tested at build or autopkgtest time because it requires exotic hardware to test. To make up for that: - We have access to such hardware in the team (foundations & kernel) - We will add a run-once manual test case to iso tracker to ensure that "power indicator shows battery indicator %") - We will execute this test case on every upload of protection-domain-mapper qrtr and the underlying kernel, as well as image milestone testing - qrtr package is minimal and will be tested in a more wide reaching solution context protection-device-mapper, that is causing battery indicator to work. [Quality assurance - packaging] - debian/watch is present and works - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=qrtr&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on<_pedantic=on<_experimental=on<_overridden=on<_masked=on<_classification=on&lintian_tag=#all lack of manpages, lack of systemd hardening features in systemd unit https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=protection- domain- mapper&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on<_pedantic=on<_experimental=on<_overridden=on<_masked=on<_classification=on&lintian_tag=#all lack of manpage, lack of systemd hardening features in systemd unit - Please link to a recent build log of the package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qrtr/1.0-2 https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper/1.0-4 - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf questions higher than medium - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules https://salsa.debian.org/DebianOnMobile-team/protection-domain- mapper/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/rules https://salsa.debian.org/DebianOnMobile- team/qrtr/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/rules [UI standards] - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) [Dependencies] - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main [Standards compliance] - This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy [Maintenance/Owner] - The owning team will be kernel-packages and I have their acknowledgement for that commitment - This does not use static builds - This does not use vendored code - This does not use vendored code - This package is not rust based - The package successfully built during the most recent test rebuild [Background information] The Package description explains the package well Upstream Name matches package name Link to upstream project are: https://github.com/andersson/qrtr and https://github.com/andersson/pd-mapper This package unblocks announcement of Ubuntu Desktop on ARM64 Laptops for the first time, on an arm64 laptop from a tier 1 OEM available for sale now. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protection-domain-mapper/+bug/2038942/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages Post to : kernel-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
