On 14 March 2017 at 23:56, John Lenton wrote:
> As a followup, I added a mutex around pthread_create, and around the
> exec syscall, and the problem went away. This all in go's runtime; not
> a huge diff but they probably don't want the overhead (and that seems
> reasonable to me).
> Next I'm goi
I've filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1672819
and https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19546
(the latter more of an FYI than a bug)
On 14 March 2017 at 10:56, John Lenton wrote:
> As a followup, I added a mutex around pthread_create, and around the
> exec syscall, and th
As a followup, I added a mutex around pthread_create, and around the
exec syscall, and the problem went away. This all in go's runtime; not
a huge diff but they probably don't want the overhead (and that seems
reasonable to me).
Next I'm going to try to find a kernel person to take a look at this.
On 14 March 2017 at 12:21, John Lenton wrote:
> On 13 March 2017 at 21:05, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
> > If I add a
> > time.Sleep(1*time.Millisecond) to a_go.go before the exec, the setuid bit
> > is respected every time.
>
> on my way to bed, I'll give your response a proper read in the
>
On 13 March 2017 at 21:05, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> If I add a
> time.Sleep(1*time.Millisecond) to a_go.go before the exec, the setuid bit
> is respected every time.
on my way to bed, I'll give your response a proper read in the
morning, but note that my reproducer causes the issue a lot mor
On 14 March 2017 at 10:05, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 14 March 2017 at 01:59, John Lenton wrote:
>
>> This one is slightly more interesting.
>>
>> You need 1.8 (or patched <1.8 as per the previous thread) for this one
>> to make sense; without it you're j
On 14 March 2017 at 01:59, John Lenton wrote:
> This one is slightly more interesting.
>
> You need 1.8 (or patched <1.8 as per the previous thread) for this one
> to make sense; without it you're just going to get drowned in warning
> messages and not see the real issue.
>
> This one is the real
Thanks for your help on this, Michael.
Yes, the fix seems pretty simple and porting to older Go releases will
ensure people are not getting those super awkward messages randomly.
I have created a Trello card with a checklist so we can track all the
distributions that we need to fix, and included
Thanks for finding and debugging this John.
I can't see how this one would be in Go. I can't think of any related
action that would disable the setuid bit on the exec syscall.
Perhaps someone from the kernel team can help here?
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:59 AM, John Lenton
wrote:
> This one i
This one is slightly more interesting.
You need 1.8 (or patched <1.8 as per the previous thread) for this one
to make sense; without it you're just going to get drowned in warning
messages and not see the real issue.
This one is the real issue :-)
In go, when calling syscall.Exec to a setuid roo
Thank you Alfonso for that link (I didn't find that when I looked, so
kudos), and thank you Michael and Zyga for all your work on this!
On 12 March 2017 at 08:38, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> PS: I guess I should back port that Go fix to all supported Go releases?
that would be very nice. Does
PS: I guess I should back port that Go fix to all supported Go releases?
On 12 March 2017 at 21:37, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Before we get into this, what is the actual problem here? Just the ugly
> messages?
>
> On 11 March 2017 at 02:58, Alfonso Sanchez-Beat
Before we get into this, what is the actual problem here? Just the ugly
messages?
On 11 March 2017 at 02:58, Alfonso Sanchez-Beato <
alfonso.sanchez-be...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:22 AM, John Lenton
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > We're seeing a weird issue with either go
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:22 AM, John Lenton
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We're seeing a weird issue with either go, pthreads, or the kernel. If
> you're knowledgeable about one or more of those things, could you take
> a look? Thank you.
>
> The issue manifests as nasty warnings from the "snap run" comm
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:22:45 +, John Lenton wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We're seeing a weird issue with either go, pthreads, or the kernel. If
> you're knowledgeable about one or more of those things, could you take
> a look? Thank you.
>
> The issue manifests as nasty warnings from the "snap run" comm
Hello!
We're seeing a weird issue with either go, pthreads, or the kernel. If
you're knowledgeable about one or more of those things, could you take
a look? Thank you.
The issue manifests as nasty warnings from the "snap run" command,
which is also the first step into a snapped app or service. It
16 matches
Mail list logo
