On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 09:09:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Thanks, it's easy enough to back out later (as long as someone actually > raises a flag when things break!), so I'm ok with that.
bacula's various postinsts (at least bacula-sd.postinst) fail with fs.protected_regular=2. This breaks at package install time, which is perhaps marginally worse than runtime. The fix is trivial though, and I'll be landing it soon. A rerun of the bacula autopkgtests following the fs.protected_regular change would have detected this case. I'm not sure we have enough data yet to make a final decision on fs.protected_regular=2 for Focal, but this is another data point. I'm not sure if it would be useful or not to rerun autopkgtests for the entire archive. There would certainly be a large amount of noise. It might be the case that maintainer scripts are more prone to this kind of thing because of their heavy use of shell and commonly mktemp. A survey of package maintainer scripts that use both mktemp and chown might be another analysis method. But of course they might source files from elsewhere, which would be non-trivial to follow. Here are details of the bacula case: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953030 https://code.launchpad.net/~racb/ubuntu/+source/bacula/+git/bacula/+merge/380163
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
