[Bug 1611603] Re: fails to start when confined in a snap

2017-02-22 Thread Celso Providelo
Using snap 2.22.5 and still getting: {{{ Time: Feb 22 23:45:01 Log: auid=4294967295 uid=1000 gid=1000 ses=4294967295 pid=6630 comm="python3" exe="/usr/bin/python3.5" sig=31 arch=c03e 92(chown) compat=0 ip=0x7f2e7d6d6717 code=0x0 Syscall: chown Suggestions: * don't copy ownership of files (eg

[Bug 1611603] Re: fails to start when confined in a snap

2017-02-02 Thread Chuck Short
** Changed in: gunicorn (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => Low ** Changed in: gunicorn (Ubuntu) Status: New => Triaged -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1611603 Title: fails to

[Bug 1611603] Re: fails to start when confined in a snap

2017-02-02 Thread Jamie Strandboge
Note that snapd 2.22 allows snaps to chown to root:root. You might be interested in https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1606510/comments/14 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1611603 Tit

[Bug 1611603] Re: fails to start when confined in a snap

2016-08-16 Thread Paul Collins
I managed to completely forget what a hack the previous patch was between writing it and posting it. So please definitely ignore that one. Here's a more sensible patch that that will skip chowning the worker temporary file if we're running as root and we know we're not going to try to drop privil

[Bug 1611603] Re: fails to start when confined in a snap

2016-08-10 Thread Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot
The attachment "skip chown when it would be a no-op" seems to be a patch. If it isn't, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are a member of the ~ubuntu- reviewers, unsubscribe the team. [This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user o

[Bug 1611603] Re: fails to start when confined in a snap

2016-08-09 Thread Paul Collins
** Description changed: I attempted to package a simple WSGI app in an Ubuntu snap with gunicorn, and ran into a problem with gunicorn vs. the Snap security policy. The policy forbids calling chown at all, whereas the gunicorn.worker.WorkerTemp class relies on the default and historic