> The simplified order is:
> 1. get approval
> 2. cause the mismatch
> 3. promotion
> From then on it is "held in main" by the established dependencies.
Ah, I see. And yes, oddly I don't see nbd-client in https://ubuntu-
archive-team.ubuntu.com/component-mismatches.txt either. Oh well.
I've now r
The order is different as packages that are not depended on by anything
get into a report and are regularly cleaned. Therefore if we'd promote
it now it might be demoted before you make your change.
The simplified order is:
1. get approval
2. cause the mismatch
3. promotion
From then on it is "hel
** Changed in: nbd (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054480
Title:
[MIR] nbd-client
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
h
Hi Christian, I've now added nbd-client next to the nbd-server entry in
the supported-misc-servers platform seed [1], and to include it on the
pi server & desktop images (the original intent), I've added it to the
server-raspi and desktop-raspi seeds [2].
I believe all that's left is to promote it
Hey, thank you so much.
You've improved the testing you've added isolation and generally did all we
asked for.
I think this bug was closed by accident as the package is not yet promoted to
main, but it would be ready to do so now.
Setting the state back, please make the change that will pull it
This bug was fixed in the package nbd - 1:3.26.1-6ubuntu1
---
nbd (1:3.26.1-6ubuntu1) plucky; urgency=medium
* Fix nbd autopkgtests to make the initrd-boot autopkgtest more robust and
remove the flaky tag (LP: #2054480)
- d/t/control: remove flaky for initrd-boot, allow-root
Hi Seth
I made further changes to the MP and looks like both the custom AppArmor
profile and the permission changes can be done away with. I think this clears
up those MPs and they can be merged then. I am attaching the test logs for
plucky, oracular and noble.
https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/res
Hi seth-arnold
Thanks for the review.
For 1 - why do we need to set the permissions on /home/ubuntu and
/boot/System.map - These permissions are different on ppc64el and s390x
on prodstack. Adding needs-root to debian/tests/control also does not
change anything, and I believe this is a configurati
Thanks so much for the additional context. I'll go add some comments on
that bug.
Thanks
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054480
Title:
[MIR] nbd-client
To manage notifications about
Hi
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nbd/+bug/2078255/comments/3 and
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nbd/+bug/2078255/comments/4 expand on
this.
The unshare command is run by debvm-create, so we cannot remove the --keep-caps
flag from it. So, I have added a custom apparmor prof
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~r41k0u/ubuntu/+source/nbd/+git/nbd/+merge/478239
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054480
Title:
[MIR] nbd-client
To manage not
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~r41k0u/ubuntu/+source/nbd/+git/nbd/+merge/478236
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054480
Title:
[MIR] nbd-client
To manage not
Can you expand on this section?
+# unload the custom apparmor profile
+if [[ $(uname -m) == "ppc64le" || $(uname -m) == "s390x" ]]; then
+apparmor_parser -R "${TMPDIR}/autopkgtest-apparmor.profile"
+fi
In what way is the apparmor profile incomplete? Why is it better to
pretend it doesn't exis
Hi, an MP is up for adding more tests (and making them pass on all
architectures)
https://code.launchpad.net/~r41k0u/ubuntu/+source/nbd/+git/nbd/+merge/474033
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~r41k0u/ubuntu/+source/nbd/+git/nbd/+merge/474033
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054480
Title:
[MIR] nbd-client
To manage not
Thank you all,
with that I sum up the details here.
- MIR ack with a few requirements
- Security Ack
- From here
1. add the tests you mentioned to the package
2. continue to !try! isolation (2058040)
3. ready for promotion in 24.10
4. SRU the tests to 24.04
5. we consider this even ok to
I gave the nbd-client.c file a very quick read and it looked moderately
well-written to me. It feels like it's got nearly three decades of
history to it -- solid, been around a while, and maybe you'd do things
different if you were doing it again, but it exists today and solves
problems, today.
So
cpaelzer> how about this - sarnold spends 20 minutes, and gives a shallow
security review based on this being in main in the past kind of already
cpaelzer> if that outcome is good, get it into 24.04
mclemenceau_> thanks cpaelzer sarnold, I'm ok with the plan w.r.t netboot with
a preference for ad
With this in light (but we have the wider "everything that is in main
for a very long time in ubuntu, even being security reviewed and got
multiple uploads), I would agree that -server could have another
security/fresh look. Do you think it’s something the security team has
the capacity to look?
O
Thanks Wouter
It appears nbd-client existed in main at some point http://old-
releases.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/n/nbd/ (thanks Seth).
Between this MIR and tree's LP#2056099 I am concerned that Security is
being bypassed as NN approaches. That's not to say anything is wrong
with how nbd-client
Not to the best of my knowledge, no. It was moved to main very early on;
I think it might've been 15 years ago. Perhaps the MIR prices didn't
exist yet back then? I wouldn't know, not having heard of the whole
thing until I saw this one pass by 🙂
The client's job is to configure an NBD device in t
Was -server code ever reviewed by a MIR?
The client contains many ioctl calls.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054480
Title:
[MIR] nbd-client
To manage notifications about this bug
> I really appreciated the detailed bug description. However, some
> elements were missing on the MIR template rules and checks, like the
> output of lintian pedantic running as per
> https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir. Also, some information are
> not exact, you state: "* The package installs
It's really nice to have upstream and the debian maintainer looking at
this issue too, thanks for joining the conversation and your recent
release! :)
Review for Source Package: nbd (already in main) with focused on
promoting nbd-client
[Summary]
MIR team ACK under the constraint to resolve the l
** Changed in: nbd (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Didier Roche-Tolomelli (didrocks)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054480
Title:
[MIR] nbd-client
To manage notifications ab
25 matches
Mail list logo
