** Changed in: ufw
Status: New => Fix Committed
** Changed in: ufw
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstr
Another fix is needed for python 3.12:
Performing tests 'good/reports'
- installing
- result:
FAIL:
4a5,8
> /<>/tests/testarea/lib/python/ufw/util.py:483: SyntaxWarning:
> invalid escape sequence '\.'
> quads = re.split('\.', nm)
> /<>/tests/testarea/lib/python/ufw/util.py:745: SyntaxWarni
I'll upload a fix for that tomorrow.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051540
Title:
ufw ftbfs with Python 3.12 as default
Status in ufw:
Fix Committed
Status
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/0.36.2-3/+build/27739360 built
fine. Closing.
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https:
fyi, I plan to fix this but probably not til next week. My plan is to
adjst the import to conditionally (or fall back to) import
setuptools.distutil and then adjust the Build-Depends/autopkgtests to
specify python3-setuptools.
I may do something else longer term, but that should get things going
a
Mathias,
So, this is a little hard to fix with the archive packages now and I'm
not sure where people are going with the 3.12 updates. I can get
python3.12 reasonably easily enough but debian/tests/control has:
# root unittests under python3
Tests: root-unittest
Depends: iptables,
netbas
I can also reproduce if I have python3-setuptools installed, but don't
have python3-distutils installed and use
SETUPTOOLS_USE_DISTUTILS=stdlib.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launc
>From my reading (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/3661),
installing python3-setuptools instead of python3-distutils should be
sufficient, with a new enough setuptools, which we have in noble.
** Bug watch added: github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues #3661
https://github.com/pypa/setuptool
> From my reading (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/3661),
installing python3-setuptools instead of python3-distutils should be
sufficient, with a new enough setuptools, which we have in noble.
Uploaded 0.36.2-4 to unstable, it migrated to noble-proposed and
awaiting autopkgtests.
--
Yo
Ok, https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-
noble/noble/amd64/u/ufw/20240211_163608_4a05d@/log.gz (the one for
python3-defaults/3.12.1-0ubuntu1) passed with 0.36.2-4 so hopefully this
bug will stay closed! :)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Tou
Public bug reported:
apparmor is not loading for Ubuntu containers under incus. This is due
to `/lib/apparmor/rc.apparmor.functions` (18.04 uses
`/lib/apparmor/functions`):
is_container_with_internal_policy() {
# this function is sometimes called independently of
# is_apparmor_loaded(), s
https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/-/commit/659a187687fc8802045c113da0d12bc4b836d591
was committed upstream for this. It would be nice if this was SRU'd.
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu Noble)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
This is already available in noble. An SRU for jammy and focal (and
ideally bionic) would be nice.
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu Bionic)
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu Focal)
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu Jammy)
Status: New
Note that after this fix, snapd in containers needs to be at >= 2.62 for
apparmor policy to load (snapd's snapd-apparmor needs the corresponding
fix as this bug). This is currently in the candidate channel.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded pack
Hi, thank you for reporting an issue. This is discussed in the ufw man
page:
"
status - show status of firewall and ufw managed rules. Use status verbose for
extra information. In the status output, 'Anywhere' is synonymous with 'any',
0.0.0.0/0 (IPv4) and ::/0 (IPv6). Note that when using status,
Public bug reported:
Filing this issue in the hopes that it will help people who are
upgrading from a system that previously used xtables to one that is
using netfilter.
ufw uses the 'iptables' suite of commands under the hood. As of iptables
1.8, iptables ships with two different backends for th
** Description changed:
Filing this issue in the hopes that it will help people who are
upgrading from a system that previously used xtables to one that is
using netfilter.
ufw uses the 'iptables' suite of commands under the hood. As of iptables
1.8, iptables ships with two different
I filed https://github.com/docker-snap/docker-snap/issues/68 for the
docker snap unconditionally using xtables.
** Bug watch added: github.com/docker-snap/docker-snap/issues #68
https://github.com/docker-snap/docker-snap/issues/68
** Also affects: iptables (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
I see this on 22.04 after upgrading from 20.04.
$ journalctl |grep 'Failed to save link data'
Apr 17 15:25:52 hostname systemd-resolved[19095]: Failed to save link data
/run/systemd/resolve/netif/3: Permission denied
Apr 17 15:25:52 hostname systemd-resolved[19095]: Failed to save link data
/run
I grep'd for 'netif' in /etc and noticed:
$ sudo grep -r netif /etc
/etc/network/if-down.d/resolved:statedir=/run/systemd/resolve/netif
/etc/network/if-up.d/resolved:statedir=/run/systemd/resolve/netif
/etc/dhcp/dhclient-exit-hooks.d/resolved:statedir=/run/systemd/resolve/netif
/etc/n
** Also affects: ifupdown (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: isc-dhcp (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ifupdown in Ubuntu.
** Changed in: ifupdown (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ifupdown in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1896772
Title:
systemd-resolved configures no Current Sc
** Changed in: isc-dhcp (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ifupdown in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1896772
Title:
systemd-resolved configures no Current Scopes
Reassigning to firewalld as the description mentions that ufw is
disabled.
This is not a bug though because iptables relies on certain
tables/chains being used and it looks like firewalld doesn't use those
(which is fine for firewalld to do). You should be able to see all
netfilter firewall rules
@Stefan, I suggest you try the fix that is in Debian. See:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990834#27
@Myron, yours sounds like a different issue. I suggest you file a new
bug, downloading https://git.launchpad.net/ufw/tree/tests/check-
requirements and including the output of 'su
@juliank - where did you see these errors? I booted with a freshly
created autopkgtest jammy vm, installed the package from proposed and it
worked fine.
Please see my previous comments-- this does not seem to be a bug in ufw
since it is using the documented unit setup that systemd recommends for
f
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950039
Title:
ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking
@juliank - note I wasn't so much talking about 'blame' as much as
understanding, so I apologize if it came across that way. Since I wasn't
able to reproduce, I was trying to reason through my thoughts to help
the discussion go further since I'm not able to diagnose it myself.
In a nutshell, I have
Attached are two 'systemd-analyze plot's for the autopktest jammy system
with cloud-init and ufw installed. plot-2.svg is for booting the system
with 0.36.1-2 (current jammy) and plot-3.svg is 0.36.1-3 (proposed
jammy). Notice how plot-2.svg, ufw and systemd-networkd start quite a
bit earlier than
** Attachment added: "plot-2.svg"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/+bug/1950039/+attachment/5550320/+files/plot-2.svg
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/b
** Attachment added: "plot-3.svg"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/+bug/1950039/+attachment/5550321/+files/plot-3.svg
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/b
Thanks for the bug report. A few things:
1. I'm not sure what 'networking stops' means precisely in the context
of this bug report. Does 'ufw disable' restore the network? Is the
network torn down? Something else (you are using a lot of limit rules
instead of allow rules, I wonder if you are hitti
> How to I ensure that ufw is fully up and initialised BEFORE the
fail2ban service starts?
This line from your existing fail2ban.service should be sufficient:
After=network.target iptables.service firewalld.service
ip6tables.service ipset.service nftables.service ufw.service
See https://www.free
> 4. you didn't mention which distro you are using
This would be good to know since some distros are using iptables 1.8.x
which has two different backends that are in play. Which distro are you
using and what is the output of `iptables --version`
--
You received this bug notification because you
> I don't believe your reproducer is valid - cloud-init is not installed
anymore, as autopkgtest-buildvm-ubuntu-cloud removes it when building
the VM, whereas it remains on the cloud images, as it's needed there to
actually get the IP address during boot.
Note, in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu
> This makes me want to understand the cloud-init configuration that is
in play. Can you share it?
I'm thinking I should upload:
DefaultDependencies=no
Before=network-pre.target
Wants=network-pre.target local-fs.target
After=local-fs.target
Do you have any objections? This would remove the expli
Thanks for the response and glad you got it worked out. It reminds me
that I would like to document using fail2ban with ufw more.
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: cloud-init (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950039
Oh! I missed from the initial report that network-pre was deleted which
clears up things considerably on my end (since I wasn't able to
reproduce, I didn't see it locally either). :)
Preparing an upload now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded pa
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ufw/0.36.1-3ubuntu1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950039
Title:
ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network
** Tags removed: block-proposed block-proposed-jammy
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1950039
Title:
ufw 0.36.1-3 introduces ordering cycle, breaking network
St
Thanks for the report. I read the ansible bug but this issue is actually
coming from the underlying iptables tool. Something on the system is
manipulating the firewall via iptables at the same time that the ufw
command is being run. As described, this would happen with any firewall
software. If onl
Actually, in thinking about this, ufw could use 'iptables -w' under the
hood. I recall having troubles with this approach when providing the fix
for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufw/+bug/1204579. I suggest following my
advice in my last comment to avoid the issue while using 'iptables -w'
is explored
** Changed in: ufw
Status: New => Triaged
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1911637
Title:
Another app is currently holding the xtables lock
Status in ufw
Thanks you for the report. It is difficult to convey ipv4 vs ipv6 vs
both in list form and currently ufw lists any ipv6 rules with '(v6)' as
part of the To and From (as seen in your paste). It isn't clear to me
how adding an 'IPv6' break would improve this... I'm going to mark this
as wishlist whi
There isn't anything in the logs the indicates that there what happened.
Do you have any other information?
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in U
It is unclear from the description that this has anything to do with
networking. Are there any firewall denials in the logs (eg,
/var/log/ufw.log or /var/log/kern.log)? If you disable ufw (sudo ufw
disable) does the problem go away?
As an aside, IIRC, MS-Teams is not a lightweight application and
There is another bug related to ansible in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufw/+bug/1911637. I suggest following that
one. Leaving this one as Expired.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.lau
@cajicas215 - your comment is not helpful. If you look at the other
comments in this bug, there has been nothing to fix in ufw. I suggest
looking at the comments in this bug and seeing if any of the issues
others have seen apply to you. If not, please report a new bug with
steps to reproduce.
--
@Fabian - your change both makes the firewall start after networking,
brings python into the boot process (which can slow down boot) and
changes the intent of 'systemctl stop ufw' from unloading the firewall
to disabling the firewall in the moment and forever in the future, which
is inappropriate (
** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a mem
** Changed in: evince (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1794064
Title:
Clickin
Olivier, yes, I shouldn't be assigned. Ian, you're right the profile is
suboptimal (it's also old so likely needs updating).
Do note that this is a separate named profile and evince (and if this is
put in an abstraction, anything that uses the abstraction) only has the
`/{,snap/core/[0-9]*/}usr/bi
I merged the changes into master. Thanks Mauricio!
** Changed in: ufw
Status: New => Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1946804
Title:
ufw br
For Impish, lets update debian/master, then I'll upload there and sync
to Ubuntu.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1946804
Title:
ufw breaks boot on network root
Ah, I hadn't checked that yet. Yes, please feel free to do the Impish
SRU and the 0.36.1-2 that I just uploaded to Debian will float into 'J'
after it opens.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https
I've looked at this issue again in reference to
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990834 and while I
still cannot reproduce, I plan to change to the following (I won't ship
the commented out lines of course):
[Unit]
Description=Uncomplicated firewall
Documentation=man:ufw(8)
#Defau
Tested 0.36-6ubuntu1 on focal. apt upgrade succeeded and after reboot
the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected order. I
was able to verify the this bug is fixed via the test steps.
** Tags removed: verification-needed-focal
** Tags added: verification-done-focal
--
You receiv
Tested 0.36-0ubuntu0.18.04.2 on bionic. apt upgrade succeeded and after
reboot the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected
order and I spot-checked allowed and deny traffic. I was able to verify
the this bug is fixed via the test steps.
** Tags removed: verification-needed-bionic
Tested 0.36-6ubuntu1 on focal. apt upgrade succeeded and after reboot
the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected order and I
spot-checked allowed and deny traffic. I didn't test on an iSCSI system
so won't add verification-done-focal at this time, but I think the
testing is probab
Tested 0.36-0ubuntu0.18.04.2 on bionic. apt upgrade succeeded and after
reboot the firewall came up with the expected rules in the expected
order and I spot-checked allowed and deny traffic. I didn't test on an
iSCSI system so won't add verification-done-focal at this time, but I
think the testing
Fyi, the current configuration is the same as firewalld upstream and
what is in Debian, Moreover it is following systemd documentation for
firewall software so I wonder if the change simply uncovered a latent
bug
Fyi, I won't be able to look at this for a while so if you need to back
it out, p
I mention firewalld cause while ufw could be reverted, firewalld users
would presumably also hit it, as well as any other software that does
it. If the ufw change is reverted, IME someone should audit the archive
for other occurrences of this pattern and update the units accordingly).
--
You rece
Also, to be clear, when I say I can't look at the ufw portions 'for a
while', I mean ~10 days (doing this from my phone).
Thinking about this, my thinking is this is less about the Before/Wants
on network-pre and the removal of DefaultDependencies and more about
Before=network being removed (with
** Also affects: ufw
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1951018
Title:
No ability to discern IPv4 vs IPv6 rules through
Thanks for the report. Does this happen every time of just occasionally?
It's clear that the open(name).readlines() isn't returning anything,
which is interesting. Do you have any other information on what might be
causing this? (the fix should be straightforward without it though)
--
You receive
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 2015645 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015645
This looks like it may be a dupe of
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015645 (the fix for it should fix
this).
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
** This bug has been marked a dupli
Thank you for reporting a bug in ufw. I've committed a fix for this to
add get_rules_ipv4() and get_rules_ipv6().
** Changed in: ufw
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
** Changed in: ufw
Status: New => Fix Committed
** Changed in: ufw
Assignee: (unassigned) => Ja
This was fixed in 0.36.2.
** Changed in: ufw
Importance: Undecided => Medium
** Changed in: ufw
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
** Changed in: ufw
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Med
This was fixed in 0.36.2.
** Changed in: ufw
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1951018
Title:
No ability to discern
** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu Mantic)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu Focal)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: ufw (Ubuntu Jammy)
Importance: Undecided
** Changed in: ufw
Importance: Medium => Wishlist
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Importance: Medium => Wishlist
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1844743
Title:
Hi. A few things: ufw is capable of logging (see 'man ufw' the part
about 'ufw logging' as well as per rule logging with 'ufw ... log' or
'ufw ... log-all'. It is also capable of ipv6 (see /etc/default/ufw.
Also, gufw is a different project than ufw, but it sounds like the issue
you saw may be seei
CzBiX, ufw does not yet manage the nat table (though there have been a
couple of false starts). However, it does manage the FORWARD chain with
'ufw route' so it is possible for you to create a chain in the nat table
in /etc/ufw/before.rules, and then use ufw route for other things. This
is describe
The check is not free, but it is an interesting idea to do this. I've
created a wishlist bug for it:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ufw/+bug/1917325
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launc
Thanks for the additional information! :)
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1914816
Title:
ufw n
Thanks you for reporting a bug. Are there other ufw commands running at the
same time? Eg, what is the output of:
$ ps auxww|grep ufw
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, whic
Till, it allows quite a few things (from man capabilities):
CAP_SYS_NICE
* Raise process nice value (nice(2), setpriority(2)) and change the
nice value for arbitrary processes;
* set real-time scheduling policies for calling process, and set
scheduling polici
Thank you for the bug report. You mentioned that the problem happens
after running `iptables -F`. This command removes all the rules from the
firewall (see man iptables) so it would be expected that the firewall
would not work correctly after running this.
I'm going to mark this as Invalid, but if
/etc/default/ufw has:
DEFAULT_OUTPUT_POLICY="ACCEPT"
This means that all outgoing traffic is allowed. If you would like to
change that, you can use:
$ sudo ufw deny outgoing
This will make it more difficult for you to manage the firewall since
you'll have to add rules like:
$ sudo ufw allow ou
Recall that ufw uses connection tracking so if you add a deny rule, you
may need to expire the connection tracking. One way to do this is to
run: `conntrack -D -d ` (see man conntrack for details).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, whi
** Description changed:
+ [ Impact ]
+
+ Currently, ufw is unusable on WSL due to this bug because the get_ppid()
+ function traces back on /proc when the command name has parentheses
+ (like in WSL). get_ppid() is called with 'ufw enable' and so ufw is not
+ able to be enabled on WSL. The upstre
Focal)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu Jammy)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu Mantic)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
--
You received this bug notification be
Robie,
https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/ubuntu/9PDXGNCFSCZV?hl=en-
us&gl=us&rtc=1 seems to indicate that only 22.04.2 is supported. Users
have talked about upgrading via the command line to 22.10, but I figured
that Lunar was about to EOL and no point in updating it at this time.
** Changed
Oh, I did mean kinetic, yes. Lunar should get an update too (though, as
mentioned, that isn't in the Microsoft store it seems).
I'll prepare an upload for Lunar, add a task and put these back to In
Progress after.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch see
ged in: ufw (Ubuntu Lunar)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu Lunar)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw
For lunar, the crmsh autopkgtest issue was unrelated. I reran the autopkgtest
and it passed:
https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-lunar/lunar/s390x/c/crmsh/20230725_140910_37cd9@/log.gz
Note that autopkg tests for ufw test various aspects of normal ufw
usage, including ufw enable. I
Note that autopkg tests for ufw test various aspects of normal ufw
usage, including ufw enable. I also performed the testing for this issue
on focal:
$ apt-cache policy ufw
ufw:
Installed: 0.36-6ubuntu1
Candidate: 0.36-6ubuntu1
Version table:
*** 0.36-6ubuntu1 500
500 http://archive
Note that autopkg tests for ufw test various aspects of normal ufw
usage, including ufw enable. I also performed the testing for this issue
on jammy:
$ apt-cache policy ufw
ufw:
Installed: 0.36.1-4build1
Candidate: 0.36.1-4build1
Version table:
*** 0.36.1-4build1 500
500 http://arch
The DpkgHistoryLog.txt has lots of entries that aren't ufw specific:
Start-Date: 2023-08-16 18:22:34
Commandline: aptdaemon role='role-commit-packages' sender=':1.134'
Upgrade: libgpgmepp6:amd64 (1.16.0-1.2ubuntu4, 1.16.0-1.2ubuntu4.1),
libgl1-amber-dri:amd64 (21.3.7-0ubuntu1, 21.3.9-0ubuntu1~22
> Somehow, wait-online now times out, while it didn't before this
update.
I just created
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/2036358 to track
this.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to systemd in
Public bug reported:
On Ubuntu 22.04 desktop system using network-manager and upgrading to
systemd 249.11-0ubuntu3.10, wait-online now times out which prevents
logins (GDM, ssh, console) until it does. This seems to be introduced by
the change for
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/
** Description changed:
On Ubuntu 22.04 desktop system using network-manager and upgrading to
systemd 249.11-0ubuntu3.10, wait-online now times out which prevents
- logins (GDM, ssh, console) until it does. This seems to be introduced by
- the change for
+ logins (GDM, ssh, console) until it d
>> On Ubuntu 22.04 desktop system using network-manager
> To be clear, does this mean you have no network interfaces that are
configured to use networkd?
Hey Steve :)
So, this system is quite old. I think the first install was 16.04 and it
went through a bunch of upgrades (mostly interim until 2
> If you are using NetworkManager, then systemd-networkd.service (and
associated units like systemd-networkd-wait-online.service) should NOT
be enabled. With the caveat that I am not sure why you have systemd-
networkd enabled in the first place, I would recommend that you simply
disable it:
> $ s
Public bug reported:
TODO
** Affects: apparmor (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
Status: In Progress
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu)
Sta
...
Installing new version of config file /etc/network/if-up.d/openssh-server ...
dpkg-query: error: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/updates/0047' near line 0:
newline in field name '#padding'
[1mdpkg:[0m error processing package openssh-server (--configure):
installed openssh-server package post-i
Thank you for reporting a bug. What you are seeing is normal and this is
nothing to worry about. The ufw systemd service is not long running but
a oneshot service.
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
T
There is nothing you need to do. Everything is normal and fine and there
is nothing to fix.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to ufw in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1817527
Title:
ufw status problem
S
** Description changed:
- TODO
+ FFe paperwork still in progress
+
+ Feature Freeze exception for AppArmor 2.13.2
+
+ The security team is pushing to get AppArmor 2.13 into 19.04 since we
+ want AppArmor 3 (or higher) in 20.04 and we'd like to incrementally
+ update to it to test the new feature
1 - 100 of 1885 matches
Mail list logo
