Hello guys,
We are making a workable mail solution snap,
the selected back-end services are Postfix(SMTP) and Dovecot(POP3/IMAP).
For those services as you known they have some dependencies with classic
paths,
for example the /etc/postfix/main.cf and /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf so we
made some chan
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
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
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
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
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 06:15:21PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Is there a mechanism for removing an unreleased package revision from the
> store? I'd like to get rid of revision 7 of the ldc2 snap, which has some
> issues on 16.10 that make it unsuitable for release (
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
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 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 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
>
jin,
i wonder if this would be better confined as classic?
/manik
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Jin Hsieh wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> We are making a workable mail solution snap,
> the selected back-end services are Postfix(SMTP) and Dovecot(POP3/IMAP).
>
> For those services as you known they
11 matches
Mail list logo
