[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-03 18:20 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ecryptfs-utils New Branches: F-8 I request that ecryptfs-utils be included in Fedora 8. This supports the eCryptfs filesystem in kernel versions 2.6.19 and higher. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-03 19:52 EST --- Mike, as I understand it, ecryptfs-utils is already in F8; the request above will get you a branch specifically for F8 rather than leaving it in devel (which eventually will become F9 after everything gets cloned off to F8) [EMAIL PROTECTED] v4l-dvb]# cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 7.91 (Rawhide) [EMAIL PROTECTED] v4l-dvb]# rpm -q ecryptfs-utils ecryptfs-utils-18-1.fc8 From jkeating's fedora-devel note today, If a package isn't branched yet, builds from devel/ continue to go to dist-f8. -Eric -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-03 22:51 EST --- Yeah, unless you want a F-8 branch now so you can keep a stable version for F-8 and move forward with a test version in devel/rawhide, there is no need to request an F-8 branch now. All current devel packages will be branched for F-8 before release. Please reset the fedora-cvs flag if you want such a branch now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|227583 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-29 10:56 EST --- make build with release 18-0 completed successfully. Closing bug as NEXTRELEASE (per the PackageMaintainers/Join instructions). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-21 11:56 EST --- 1. Still requires kernel 2.6.19; this should be a conflicts 2. -devel requires openssl-devel and pam-devel even though it's not actually linked against either of those (and I don't see definitions that would need them in the header, but I might be reading wrong.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-21 12:45 EST --- Looks OK to me. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-21 14:40 EST --- Thanks for the review and spotting those issues. (Reassigning to you as reviewer) Michael: Do let me know when you are through the red tape and ready to co-maintain. In the mean time please let me know if there is anything else I should update, etc. I am adding you in the initialcc for bugs. Package Name: ecryptfs-utils Short Description: The eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7 FC-6 InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-21 14:59 EST --- Through heroic efforts on the part of several brave souls, in the face of seemingly insurmountable bureaucratic opposition, I am happy to report that I have finally been added to the cla_done group. I am ready to co-maintain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-21 15:26 EST --- Hurray. Excellent news. Can you go to this step: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#head-0dbf12f9c493a3f20fae545bb9c1396cb0a88053 and request sponsorship? (updated cvs request, once Michael is sponsored). Package Name: ecryptfs-utils Short Description: The eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-20 14:50 EST --- Statically linking mount.ecryptfs is still problematic. In order to perform its key management functions (i.e., parsing the user's rc file and pulling in dynamic key modules), libecryptfs needs to call getpwuid and dlopen. Any attempts I have made thus far to statically link mount.ecryptfs have resulted in warnings from the tools about specific versions of glibc runtime and shared libraries needing to be available, and I am getting nothing but segfaults, with valgrind complaining about conditional jumps to libc functions depending on uninitialized values. However, the eCryptfs kernel module depends on keys being available in the user session keyring on mount. Bill mentioned this in a previous comment: Into the *user session* keyring? If it's not being done until the user logs in,you can assume that /usr is available, so it's not an issue. So if dynamically linking against libraries in /usr/lib is a non-issue in the case of eCryptfs, then can we consider any remaining linking issues brought up in comment #55 to be non-applicable? Thanks, Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-20 15:37 EST --- Possibly not. Are there no provisions for system-level encryption? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-20 18:39 EST --- eCryptfs is pretty well hooked in with the kernel keyring. There could be some modifications done in the kernel module to allow key registration via a mount option or a sysfs handle, if that is something that users will really want, but to date, nobody has requested such a thing. eCryptfs links against libgcrypt mainly because it is less complicated in terms of licensing (it's all GPL). The next-best option I would choose would be to just copy in what libecryptfs needs from libtomcrypt. Release 17 keeps all the linking as-is, but it also has a built-in fallback for the passphrase key module in the event that the usr/lib/ecryptfs/ directory is not set up as expected. I added several new userspace utilities for managing wrapped passphrases. This involves keeping a permanent mount passphrase wrapped by your login. This is helpful, for instance, if you are using pam_ecryptfs.so and want to be able to change your login passphrase without having to re-encrypt all of your data. I added the commands to run check-rpath in my ~/.rpmmacros file, as suggested in the packaging guidelines, and I did not see any errors generated by check-rpath. Release 17 is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-17.tar.bz2 Along with an updated SPEC file (although I'm not sure what Kevin has done with the SPEC file since I last changed it): http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-20 20:10 EST --- I had a local updated spec, but hadn't done anything much with it pending the static discussion. ;) I just used your updated spec here and it looks to me like it solves all the issues notting saw, with the possible exception of the static linking idea. notting: can you look and see if there are any remaining blockers here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-19 19:30 EST --- Given the fact that it links to libgcrypt, it's probably best to link mount.ecrypt statically. But then there is the same problem with pam_ecryptfs.so, which also needs libgcrypt and libgpg-error. My naive attempts to just link them statically into pam_ecryptfs.so have been met with protests by the tools about portability (and, in any case, I haven't yet found a way to coerce libtool to do that via a proper Makefile.am entry). Note that plenty of other /lib/security files dynamically link stuff under /usr/lib, including libcrack, libkrb4, libsmime3, etc. Since so many other /lib/security/*so files link against libraries in /usr/lib, is it okay for pam_ecryptfs.so to do the same? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-15 08:41 EST --- eCryptfs is broken in 2.6.22-rc4 (kernel hang), so I've been busy working on some patches to fix it. I think I have the issues resolved, so I'll try to find some time this weekend to resume work on the userspace package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-15 01:51 EST --- Hey Michael. Any word on a new upstream release moving to /lib or making things static? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 12:50 EST --- Kevin wrote: Thanks for looking at this! We had gotten rid of the rpath in the past... looks like it's crept back. Will get that fixed. I thought I had addressed this issue with the --disable-rpath configure flag. I don't think there's anything funny in my makefiles that should re-introduce it. 1) keyutils, openssl, pam requirements should be superfluous - library dependencies take care of this ok. Removed. 2) kernel requires are tricky. Generally, we do Conflicts: kernel 2.6.19 as there's no reason, for example, to pull a kernel into a buildroot. Well, the tricky part here is we need to require a kernel with ecryptfs.ko in it. For F-7 and devel no problems, as all of them have it. For FC-6 however, the early kernels didn't, and the updated ones do. I thought that the error end users get from yum on Requires is more usefull than Conflicts? That's bad; these shouldn't be linked against things in /usr/lib. (Yes, some people still run /usr separate.) Moreover, I suspect that both of these will also dlopen the plugins in $(libdir)/ecryptfs? Thats a good Question. Michael? Any thoughts? It makes sense to link these statically. I will make it so in the next ecryptfs-utils release. Yes, those .so's under libdir/ecryptfs/ do dlopen the so's. This sounds like something for upstream to change? The files in libdir/ecryptfs/ are pluggable key modules, sort of like OpenSSL engines in /usr/lib/engines/. However, they are necessary in order to insert the key for the given key type into the user session keyring, and hence are necessary in order to mount. It sounds like the key modules shipping with the ecryptfs-utils package would best be statically linked too. -devel: what, if anything, will ever build against this? If there's nothing, it may not be worth shipping. (Also,does this package maintain a stable ABI?) I don't know of anything... Michael? libecryptfs exists specifically to allow others to write their own utilities (a GUI, for instance) to work with eCryptfs key management functions. For instance, anyone who wants to write their own pluggable key modules to interface with their own key management system will need the -devel package. The exported symbols in libecryptfs can be considered stable. Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 13:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #57) I thought I had addressed this issue with the --disable-rpath configure flag. I don't think there's anything funny in my makefiles that should re-introduce it. It's probably libtool. See the 'Removing RPATH' section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines - you may need some of the sed goo there. It makes sense to link these statically. I will make it so in the next ecryptfs-utils release. Yes, those .so's under libdir/ecryptfs/ do dlopen the so's. This sounds like something for upstream to change? The files in libdir/ecryptfs/ are pluggable key modules, sort of like OpenSSL engines in /usr/lib/engines/. However, they are necessary in order to insert the key for the given key type into the user session keyring, and hence are necessary in order to mount. Into the *user session* keyring? If it's not being done until the user logs in,you can assume that /usr is available, so it's not an issue. libecryptfs exists specifically to allow others to write their own utilities (a GUI, for instance) to work with eCryptfs key management functions. For instance, anyone who wants to write their own pluggable key modules to interface with their own key management system will need the -devel package. OK, thanks. Re: kernel requires vs. conflicts; conflicts is what we've historically done in packages such as initscripts, hal, and so on that don't work with older kernels. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 13:07 EST --- I thought I had addressed this issue with the --disable-rpath configure flag. I don't think there's anything funny in my makefiles that should re-introduce it. Yeah, me too. Will investigate more... It makes sense to link these statically. I will make it so in the next ecryptfs-utils release. Well, not sure they need to be static... I think the idea was to move the libraries from /usr/ to /lib|/lib64. That would allow them to work fine for people who have /usr on a remote fs or the like. It sounds like the key modules shipping with the ecryptfs-utils package would best be statically linked too. Again, not sure static is needed, simply move them to a /lib/ecryptfs/ instead of /usr/lib/ Notting: Any input on static vs simply moving to /lib ? Thanks for looking at this Mike! Re: kernel requires vs. conflicts; conflicts is what we've historically done in packages such as initscripts, hal, and so on that don't work with older kernels. ok, can leave the Conflicts for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 13:46 EST --- Moving to /lib is fine, but there's still things like libgcrypt, openssl, etc. that those plugins may link to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 02:49 EST --- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - OK - License field in spec matches - OK - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - OK - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK - .la files are removed. - OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - N/A - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output. *** E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /sbin/mount.ecryptfs ['/usr/lib64'] E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /lib64/security/pam_ecryptfs.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfsd ['/usr/lib64'] E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfs-manager ['/usr/lib64'] - final provides and requires are sane: *** Main package has: Requires: keyutils openssl pam kernel = 2.6.19 1) keyutils, openssl, pam requirements should be superfluous - library dependencies take care of this 2) kernel requires are tricky. Generally, we do Conflicts: kernel 2.6.19 as there's no reason, for example, to pull a kernel into a buildroot. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK (tried x86_64) - Should build on all supported archs - build i386 non-mock - Should function as described. - mounted FS successfully - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - build checks were done with 16, even though 15 was here :) MISC item: So, general sanity checking: /lib/security/pam_ecryptfs.so: linux-gate.so.1 = (0x00e9e000) ...libdl.so.2 = /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x006a6000) libecryptfs.so.0 = /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0 (0x00b11000) libgcrypt.so.11 = /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11 (0x007c4000) ... libgpg-error.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0 (0x0056f000) /sbin/mount.ecryptfs: linux-gate.so.1 = (0x00397000) libgpg-error.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0 (0x038a8000) libecryptfs.so.0 = /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0 (0x008eb000) ... libgcrypt.so.11 = /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11 (0x03e3a000) That's bad; these shouldn't be linked against things in /usr/lib. (Yes, some people still run /usr separate.) Moreover, I suspect that both of these will also dlopen the plugins in $(libdir)/ecryptfs? -devel: what, if anything, will ever build against this? If there's nothing, it may not be worth shipping. (Also,does this package maintain a stable ABI?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 19:24 EST --- Thanks for looking at this! We had gotten rid of the rpath in the past... looks like it's crept back. Will get that fixed. 1) keyutils, openssl, pam requirements should be superfluous - library dependencies take care of this ok. Removed. 2) kernel requires are tricky. Generally, we do Conflicts: kernel 2.6.19 as there's no reason, for example, to pull a kernel into a buildroot. Well, the tricky part here is we need to require a kernel with ecryptfs.ko in it. For F-7 and devel no problems, as all of them have it. For FC-6 however, the early kernels didn't, and the updated ones do. I thought that the error end users get from yum on Requires is more usefull than Conflicts? That's bad; these shouldn't be linked against things in /usr/lib. (Yes, some people still run /usr separate.) Moreover, I suspect that both of these will also dlopen the plugins in $(libdir)/ecryptfs? Thats a good Question. Michael? Any thoughts? Yes, those .so's under libdir/ecryptfs/ do dlopen the so's. This sounds like something for upstream to change? -devel: what, if anything, will ever build against this? If there's nothing, it may not be worth shipping. (Also,does this package maintain a stable ABI?) I don't know of anything... Michael? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-06 15:01 EST --- Hey Michael. While the legal gears are grinding along, would you mind if I went ahead and imported this package and maintained it for now? Then, once the red tape is beaten back I can add you as a co-maintainer? Let me know if you find that acceptable for now... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-06 17:10 EST --- Kevin - Yes, if you have the cycles to take care of that, it would be fine by me. Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-06 18:36 EST --- Excellent. Please do let me know as soon as you are ready to be a co-maintainer. I will set you for inital CC's on bugs... I am only requesting F-7 and devel for now. I think we could support FC-6, but we will need to be careful to pull in the right update kernel that has ecryptfs support. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ecryptfs-utils Short Description: The eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7 InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-06 22:08 EST --- Sorry about that, just realized that I shouldn't both approve and maintain... Can someone else do a review for me? It should be pretty easy hopefully. All the issues I saw are solved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||227583 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 11:32 EST --- Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I see in the build log: ... PAM directory: [/lib/security] ./configure: line 20473: gtk-config: command not found ./configure: line 20474: gtk-config: command not found ./configure: line 20475: gtk-config: command not found GTK not found Is there a missing BuildRequires: on gtk? (Not sure what it would be used for though). Not for this release. Someone put some work into a graphical eCryptfs mount management tool last summer, but it never got into a state that is worthy of inclusion into the utils package. So the check for gtk will be needed once the code is available, but for now, the ./configure warning can be ignored. Also, the permissions don't look right on the pam module. It's mode 644, but should be 755? This results in it not appearing in the debuginfo since it's not executable. All the other pam modules appear to be 755... It turns out that some distro's set the PAM permissions to 644 and others to 755. It looks like the only effect in Fedora is the inclusion in debuginfo. Version 15-1 changes the PAM module permission from 644 to 755. Spec file: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec Source RPM: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-15-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 15:06 EST --- Not for this release. Someone put some work into a graphical eCryptfs mount management tool last summer, but it never got into a state that is worthy of inclusion into the utils package. So the check for gtk will be needed once the code is available, but for now, the ./configure warning can be ignored. ok. Makes sense. It turns out that some distro's set the PAM permissions to 644 and others to 755. It looks like the only effect in Fedora is the inclusion in debuginfo. Version 15-1 changes the PAM module permission from 644 to 755. Humm. I don't see that change in the -1 version. Only the changelog and the version are changed. Can you doublecheck the version you updated? In any case you can fix that before you check it in... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 15:25 EST --- Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't see that change in the -1 version. The permission change was actually done in src/pam_ecryptfs/Makefile.am in the source tarball. I'm working on getting through some red tape to create my Fedora account. Hopefully I'll be able to get the package in by next week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 18:25 EST --- In reply to comment #49: Ah, I looked and didn't see an increment in the release or change in the md5sum, but perhaps it was cached. It's best to increase release for any changes (no matter how minor) so people know it was changed. Please let me know if I can assist any with the fedora account/red tape... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 15:16 EST --- Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Oh, I see that -14 is out now. If you would like me to look over the updated package before you import it, I would be happy to do so. I added a PAM module that can be used to automatically insert the user's key (based on his login passphrase) into his keyring at login. This can be used to perform automatic eCryptfs mounts. Updated spec: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec New source RPM package (version 15): http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-15-0.src.rpm Thanks, Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 00:48 EST --- I see in the build log: ... PAM directory: [/lib/security] ./configure: line 20473: gtk-config: command not found ./configure: line 20474: gtk-config: command not found ./configure: line 20475: gtk-config: command not found GTK not found Is there a missing BuildRequires: on gtk? (Not sure what it would be used for though). Also, the permissions don't look right on the pam module. It's mode 644, but should be 755? This results in it not appearing in the debuginfo since it's not executable. All the other pam modules appear to be 755... Other than that it looks good... ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-18 12:16 EST --- I can do another round of testing tonight with ppc32 and x86_64 rawhide. I don't have a handy i386/rawhide machine around right now. If someone out there could do some testing with i386/rawhide that would be great. The packaging itself is good to approve now, but I hate to have something in that doesn't work. ;( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 | nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-18 23:32 EST --- ok. I have done some testing here with the latest rawhide kernel and ecrypts-utils. - ppc32 works just fine. No oops. No issues. I can mount, read/write and unmount ok. - x86_64 works ok. There is a locking message when you first try and use the mount after mounting, but there is no ill effect. mount/read/write/umount all work ok. Here's the locking messages I see in dmesg: = [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.20-1.3079.fc7 #1 - ls/23073 is trying to acquire lock: (inode-i_mutex){--..}, at: [802622fe] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e but task is already holding lock: (inode-i_mutex){--..}, at: [802622fe] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e other info that might help us debug this: 1 lock held by ls/23073: #0: (inode-i_mutex){--..}, at: [802622fe] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e stack backtrace: Call Trace: [802a2e62] __lock_acquire+0x151/0xbd1 [883f2120] :ecryptfs:ecryptfs_filldir+0x0/0x7d [802a3cd8] lock_acquire+0x4c/0x65 [802622fe] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e [8026213a] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xff/0x299 [802622bb] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x280/0x299 [802622fe] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e [80235b75] vfs_readdir+0x61/0xb1 [8022668a] filldir+0x0/0xc5 [883f2384] :ecryptfs:ecryptfs_readdir+0x6c/0xb2 [8022668a] filldir+0x0/0xc5 [80235b90] vfs_readdir+0x7c/0xb1 [80239340] sys_getdents+0x7a/0xc4 [8025c11e] system_call+0x7e/0x83 That looks like it's a cosmetic bug more than one that causes any real problems. So, since there are no more packaging issues, and things seem to work now, I will go ahead and APPROVE this package. Michael: You can continue the process at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#head-a601c13b0950a89568deafa65f505b4b58ee869b If you have any questions at all about the process, feel free to email me, or catch me on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-devel (nick: nirik). Oh, I see that -14 is out now. If you would like me to look over the updated package before you import it, I would be happy to do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-29 13:43 EST --- re: the lockdep warnings, I think ecryptfs is just confusing lockdep. ecryptfs hits vfs_filldir 2x for example, for both upper lower filesystems, and takes i_mutex both times. Granted, these are actually different inodes, once for upper once for lower, but lockdep doesn't know that. And I'm not sure how to teach it . :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 17:59 EST --- Out of curiosity, is the eCryptfs utilities package on-track for inclusion in FC7? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:15 EST --- Well, currently I see no issues with how it's packaged, so normally I could approve it now and get you to move forward in the procedure, but I was hoping we could make sure the package works before importing and building it for users. ;) Any idea what the error in comment #36 means? It doesn't work for me here on x86_64. Just spits out that error. ;( Also, can someone confirm it works on i386? I can try and test that later tonight... Once we can confirm it's working, it should be ready to import and build for fc7 (and fc6 if you like). Thanks for all your patience on this, and hopefully we can get it all set soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:29 EST --- Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Any idea what the error in comment #36 means? It doesn't work for me here on x86_64. Just spits out that error. ;( Also, can someone confirm it works on i386? I can try and test that later tonight... What is the actual mount command you are giving? Does this work when run as root? modprobe ecryptfs; modprobe aes; modprobe md5; mkdir /secret; mount -t ecryptfs -o key=passphrase:passwd=test,passthrough=n,cipher=aes /secret /secret -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-04 16:23 EST --- ok, all the package issues I saw seem to have been solved... I would still like to get it working on x86_64 before we import the package however. With the -10 release here I get: Attempting to mount with the following options: ecryptfs_cipher=aes ecryptfs_key_bytes=16 ecryptfs_sig=dba5ed7952a1184d Error mounting eCryptfs; rc = [-2]; strerr = [No such file or directory] Any idea on that one? Nothing at all in dmesg, so those things seem solved to me, but it doesn't appear to work still. ;( Could someone try a rawhide i386 machine? I don't have one handy right at the moment... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-02 09:38 EST --- Mar 2 14:25:26 rawhide64 kernel: = [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.20-1.2949.fc7 #1 - bash/3868 is trying to acquire lock: (inode-i_mutex){--..}, at: [802624d6] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e but task is already holding lock: (inode-i_mutex){--..}, at: [802624d6] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e other info that might help us debug this: 1 lock held by bash/3868: #0: (inode-i_mutex){--..}, at: [802624d6] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e stack backtrace: Call Trace: [802a30ad] __lock_acquire+0x151/0xbc4 [8843e114] :ecryptfs:ecryptfs_filldir+0x0/0x7d [802a3f16] lock_acquire+0x4c/0x65 [802624d6] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e [80262312] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xff/0x299 [802624d6] mutex_lock+0x2a/0x2e [80235ab6] vfs_readdir+0x61/0xb1 [80226604] filldir+0x0/0xc5 [8843e374] :ecryptfs:ecryptfs_readdir+0x6c/0xb2 [80226604] filldir+0x0/0xc5 [80235ad1] vfs_readdir+0x7c/0xb1 [8023927f] sys_getdents+0x7a/0xc4 [8025c24a] tracesys+0x71/0xe1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-02 19:58 EST --- Peter Vrabec wrote: INFO: possible recursive locking detected I'm not sure that there's really a problem here. This warning goes away when I insert a few printk() statements, which indicates that the mutex is properly released when some time is given to the code that does this release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-01 06:50 EST --- There are 2 lines before kernel error in messages: Mar 1 11:33:47 rawhide64 mount.ecryptfs: Your kernel does not support key module [openssl] Mar 1 11:33:59 rawhide64 mount.ecryptfs: Mount opts: [ecryptfs_sig=945f0e28ae2dfba0,ecryptfs_key_bytes=16,ecryptfs_cipher=aes,] # uname -a Linux rawhide64 2.6.20-1.2949.fc7 #1 SMP Mon Feb 26 18:33:03 EST 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-01 18:14 EST --- Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 1. Might include the following as %doc files: AUTHORS NEWS THANKS Done. On point 2, you might consider litterally having: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in the spec. Done. So, the module wasn't loaded and it didn't autoload it. I did a manual 'modprobe ecryptfs' and then tried again. It seems to work, but I don't see anything with df, and looking in dmesg I get: mount.ecryptfs[4322] general protection rip:3226c5e4b9 rsp:7fffa5c67a80 error:0 mount.ecryptfs[4568] general protection rip:3226c5e4b9 rsp:7fff15962c10 error:0 There was a bug in the error path (free bogus pointer). Fixed in the ecryptfs-utils-10 release. Peter Vrabec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There are 2 lines before kernel error in messages: Mar 1 11:33:47 rawhide64 mount.ecryptfs: Your kernel does not support key module [openssl] Mar 1 11:33:59 rawhide64 mount.ecryptfs: Mount opts: [ecryptfs_sig=945f0e28ae2dfba0,ecryptfs_key_bytes=16,ecryptfs_cipher=aes,] The mount helper is overly verbose; fixed in the ecryptfs-utils-10 release. I also changed the key module build in ecryptfs-utils-10 so that it is now possible to disable building the OpenSSL key module; however, that should not affect the RPM. Future releases will likely include many more key modules, and if they are all included in the same RPM, then there could be an extra dependency for each key module (openCryptoki, TrouSerS, etc.), whether the user wants the key module or not. If it would be acceptable to break the key modules into individual RPM's (ecryptfs-keymodule-openssl, ecryptfs-keymodule-tss, ecryptfs-keymodule-ock, etc.), then that would reduce the dependencies for ecryptfs-utils. Updated SPEC is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec?use_mirror=osdn Updated SRPM is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-10-0.src.rpm There are also a number of minor kernel bugfixes that Red Hat may want to pick up as separate patches in its 2.6.20 kernel. Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 22:26 EST --- Hey Michael. Sorry for the delay here. ;( I did some testing here on my x86_64 box, running the latest rawhide. ecryptfs-utils-9-1 kernel-2.6.20-1.2949.fc7.x86_64 Trying: cd /tmp mkdir secret mount -t ecryptfs /secret /secret Unable to get the version number of the kernel module. Please make sure that you have the eCryptfs kernel module loaded, you have sysfs mounted, and the sysfs mount point is in /etc/mtab. This is necessary so that the mount helper knows which kernel options are supported. Enabling passphrase-mode only for now. Passphrase: Verify Passphrase: Cipher 1) Twofish 2) CAST5 3) CAST6 4) Blowfish 5) AES-128 6) AES-192 7) AES-256 8) Triple-DES Selection [AES-128]: 7 Attempting to mount with the following options: ecryptfs_cipher=aes ecryptfs_key_bytes=32 ecryptfs_sig=dba5ed7952a1184d So, the module wasn't loaded and it didn't autoload it. I did a manual 'modprobe ecryptfs' and then tried again. It seems to work, but I don't see anything with df, and looking in dmesg I get: mount.ecryptfs[4322] general protection rip:3226c5e4b9 rsp:7fffa5c67a80 error:0 mount.ecryptfs[4568] general protection rip:3226c5e4b9 rsp:7fff15962c10 error:0 I'll try some more testing with ppc and i386 soon. If you could spin a new -2 release addressing the issues in the last comment, we can try and get this moved forward. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 21:47 EST --- ok. Understood on the versioning... there are other projects that also do just iteger releases, for example: xterm (version 223 now). Then there is the case where the user builds his kernel without module support. I think the approach should be the same as with packages that only support specific kernel features, such as CIFS. I looked over the SAMBA spec file, and nothing jumped out at me as a kernel module build dependency. Yeah, I don't see anything there either. I guess just having the 2.6.19 dependency... I ran several tests eCryptfs on x86_64 with kernel-2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 and ext3 as the lower filesystem, and I did not get any errors on unmount. ok. I will retest here... In response to comments #17 and #18, I have updated the SPEC file and have generated an updated source RPM. Except for an extra comment in the README, the source tarball remains unchanged. Source RPM: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-9-1.src.rpm SPEC file: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec Humm. I don't see this addressed: 1. Might include the following as %doc files: AUTHORS NEWS THANKS On point 2, you might consider litterally having: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in the spec. Then you wouldn't need to remember to change the Requires: ecryptfs = 9-1 on every upgrade. On point3, I see you have --disable-rpath, so hopefully that fixes the rpath issues. I will do a build to confirm. On point4, dist tag looks good. I am having some mirror issues here, but as soon as thats solved, I will do another build and do some more testing. The package is looking pretty good from what I can see... If you could spin another release addressing the items above, that would be great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-06 19:02 EST --- Kevin Fenzi wrote: 1. Your version scheme seems a bit odd. Is there any reason why you do major integer releases every time? Now that 9 is out it's hard to go to a more traditional 'work toward a stable 1.0', but it might be worth considering just minor bumps for minor changes? I have considered using the dot notation in the version, but there is no notion of ``major'' and ``minor'' releases in our development and release cycle for the mount helper code. There will never be an ``experimental'' or ``beta'' branch of the code. The feature set is complete as-is for what is available in the kernel, and the current version is suitable for general release and use in production environments; adding extra characters into the version string would really provide no useful information. The mount helper is small and simple enough that I just can't justify maintaining multiple branches. The only other versioning scheme I might consider would be MMDD (which we did use for a while in the very early snapshot releases), but I prefer to minimize the number of characters used to express the version. In all cases, I recommend using the most recent release in any deployment of the mount helper code, regardless of its version number. 3. The 2.6.19 kernel in fc6 updates has the ecryptfs module, so here should be support for this in fc6 with the updated kernel at least. Not sure how we are going to require that however. Wonder if we can do a 'Requires: ecryptfs.ko'. Then there is the case where the user builds his kernel without module support. I think the approach should be the same as with packages that only support specific kernel features, such as CIFS. I looked over the SAMBA spec file, and nothing jumped out at me as a kernel module build dependency. I ran several tests eCryptfs on x86_64 with kernel-2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 and ext3 as the lower filesystem, and I did not get any errors on unmount. In response to comments #17 and #18, I have updated the SPEC file and have generated an updated source RPM. Except for an extra comment in the README, the source tarball remains unchanged. Source RPM: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-9-1.src.rpm SPEC file: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec Thanks, Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-27 23:15 EST --- In reply to comment #24: Are you using a x86_64 machine? I see the same thing on my x86_64 machine here. I'll attach the dmesg from the machine. It does sound like a locking issue. Michael: Could you post an updated package addressing the issues in comments #17 and #18? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-27 23:17 EST --- Created an attachment (id=146760) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=146760action=view) backtrace from dmesg on x86_64 machine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-26 05:09 EST --- #mkdir crypt #mkdir foo #mount -t ecryptfs crypt foo Passphrase: Verify Passphrase: Cipher 1) AES-128 2) AES-192 3) AES-256 4) CAST5 5) Twofish 6) Triple-DES 7) Blowfish 8) CAST6 Selection [AES-128]: Attempting to mount with the following options:[enter] ecryptfs_cipher=aes ecryptfs_key_bytes=16 ecryptfs_sig=945f0e28ae2dfba0 Mounted ecryptfs #cd foo #vim xxx #cd .. #umount foo Neoprávněný přístup do paměti (SIGSEGV) Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Fri Jan 26 09:56:52 2007 ... dhcp-lab-160 kernel: general protection fault: [1] SMP -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-26 05:43 EST --- this is suspicious, isn't it: in /etc/mtab is /rootcrypt /rootfoo ecryptfs rw,ecryptfs_sig=945f0e28ae2dfba0,ecryptfs_key_bytes=16,ecryptfs_cipher=aes, 0 0 in /proc/mounts is crypt/ /root/foo ecryptfs rw,dir=/root/crypt 0 0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-26 18:09 EST --- Peter Vrabec wrote: #umount foo Neoprávněný přístup do paměti (SIGSEGV) With this sequence of operations, everything on my end is sane. It looks like I am going to have to set up a test machine with your exact kernel to reproduce this. If you have the time, you might try this with the most recent -mm kernel to see if the issue is already resolved there. this is suspicious, isn't it: in /etc/mtab is /rootcrypt /rootfoo ecryptfs rw,ecryptfs_sig=945f0e28ae2dfba0,ecryptfs_key_bytes=16,ecryptfs_cipher=aes, 0 0 in /proc/mounts is crypt/ /root/foo ecryptfs rw,dir=/root/crypt 0 0 I'm not sure what the consequences are of these not being in sync, but I suppose it would be a good thing to put on the work queue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-25 09:59 EST --- Created an attachment (id=146549) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=146549action=view) dmesg I got this error during unmount. Tested on Linux dhcp-lab-160.brq.redhat.com 2.6.19-1.2912.fc7 #1 SMP Sun Jan 14 20:08:35 EST 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-25 14:52 EST --- Created an attachment (id=146611) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=146611action=view) Some printk() and a BUG_ON() to help track down unmount oops Add some printk() and a BUG_ON() statements to help track down unmount oops. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-25 14:55 EST --- Peter Vrabec wrote: Created an attachment (id=146549) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=146549action=view) [edit] dmesg I got this error during unmount. I think this is something I've seen before, but I don't know how to reproduce it. Could you provide a sequence of operations that will invoke this stack trace? In the meantime, I added a patch that might help debug this issue. The stack trace suggests to me that an inode mutex in the lower filesystem is being locked and is not being properly unlocked somewhere along the way. Right now I suspect a missing unlock in ecryptfs_d_release(), but until I can find a way to reproduce this on my end, I'm sort of in the dark. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-24 14:31 EST --- Kevin Fenzi wrote: ecryptfs_parse_options: Could not find key with description: [15194abfa1fef279] It sounds like there is a problem getting the key into your user session keyring. This seems to be becoming a more common problem recently. We are in the process of updating the userspace tools to do some preliminary sanity checks of the keyring before attempting to move forward with the mount. The failure conditions could be more gracefully handled in the userspace mount helper too. After you attempt a mount, what is the output of ``keyctl show''? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-23 23:24 EST --- In reply to comment #16: This is the only package I intend on maintaining in Fedora at the moment. ok. This would save you having to go through the sponsorship process and also take a task off your hands if you don't want to do it. ;) I would like to take the path of least resistance to get eCryptfs support into Fedora, but I would also like the ability to push changes into the package without having to bother a middleman. The userspace utilities change about as rapidly as the kernel module, which is probably going to be changing on every 2.6.x kernel release for at least the next year. Indeed. Understandable. I would really like to see this package in as well. So, I can review this package and sponsor you once it's in an acceptable state. From what I understand, I can just do this? ...snipp dist tag patch... Yes, that should do it. Some other notes/observations before a formal review: 1. Your version scheme seems a bit odd. Is there any reason why you do major integer releases every time? Now that 9 is out it's hard to go to a more traditional 'work toward a stable 1.0', but it might be worth considering just minor bumps for minor changes? 2. x86_64 now builds here. :) As does ppc32. 3. The 2.6.19 kernel in fc6 updates has the ecryptfs module, so there should be support for this in fc6 with the updated kernel at least. Not sure how we are going to require that however. Wonder if we can do a 'Requires: ecryptfs.ko'. Look for a formal review here soon... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-24 00:24 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: e6afeeb371c5d7d8c8d3c6dc379dd11a ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2 e6afeeb371c5d7d8c8d3c6dc379dd11a ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2.1 bbd72d4036e2b0faf7a8a4ca204fed274c6849cd ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2 bbd72d4036e2b0faf7a8a4ca204fed274c6849cd ecryptfs-utils-9.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Might include the following as %doc files: AUTHORS NEWS THANKS 2. The devel subpackage should have: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} You have currently = and just version. 3. rpmlint says: E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfsd ['/usr/ lib64'] E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ecryptfs-manager ['/ usr/lib64'] E: ecryptfs-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /sbin/mount.ecryptfs ['/usr/ lib64'] See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head- a1dfb5f46bf4098841e31a75d833e6e1b3e72544 4. The keyutils-libs Requires doesn't seem needed. keyutils pulls it in, and thats already required. 5. Should add the dist tag, as discussed in previous comments. A few other notes, not related to packaging: - http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net/README seems to be out of date? - I tried the example in the README, doing: mkdir /root/crypt /mnt/crypt; mount -t ecryptfs /root/crypt /mnt/crypt It prompts me for a passphrase, etc, but then I don't see the dir mounted and writing files just appears to write to the dirs, am I missing a step? I see reports of someone perhaps having the same issue on a x86_64 box, which I am also using... Installing the i386 version gets me: Error mounting ecryptfs - I'm not sure what the README means by a 'layover mount', can you expand? - If it would help you are welcome to use my x86_64 test box to track down x86_64 issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-24 00:41 EST --- FYI, on my x86_64 box with either the x86_64 or i386 package installed, and my ppc box, I get the Error mounting ecryptfs and in dmesg I see: ecryptfs_parse_options: Could not find key with description: [15194abfa1fef279] process_request_key_err: Unknown error code: [0xff82] Error parsing options; rc = [-22] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-16 17:58 EST --- Updated SPEC is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec Updated SRPM is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-9-0.src.rpm Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: First one general query: You are upstream for this package, do you intend to only maintain this one package in fedora, or are you planning on submitting more. This is the only package I intend on maintaining in Fedora at the moment. If you are just seeking to make sure this is in fedora, perhaps someone who is already a maintainer might step up to do so. Perhaps. This would save you having to go through the sponsorship process and also take a task off your hands if you don't want to do it. ;) I would like to take the path of least resistance to get eCryptfs support into Fedora, but I would also like the ability to push changes into the package without having to bother a middleman. The userspace utilities change about as rapidly as the kernel module, which is probably going to be changing on every 2.6.x kernel release for at least the next year. - You might use the %{?dist} tag. This is very handy when you push the same version of a package to multiple releases, so upgrades are still smooth. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag From what I understand, I can just do this? --- diff --git a/rpm/ecryptfs-utils.spec b/rpm/ecryptfs-utils.spec index f6e42ea..6d717f7 100644 --- a/rpm/ecryptfs-utils.spec +++ b/rpm/ecryptfs-utils.spec @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Name: ecryptfs-utils Version: 9 -Release: 0 +Release: 0%{?dist} Summary: The eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Group: System Environment/Base License: GPL --- - Build on x86_64 doesn't work. The build process ends with: RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/ecryptfs-utils-8-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/ecryptfs It looks like the package is installing /usr/lib/ecryptfs on x86_64, when it should be installing in /usr/lib64/ecryptfs. This required some changes to the build, but I believe I have this remedied in the most recent version of the package. Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||221596 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-05 15:55 EST --- I don't have access to bug #221596. Is anyone at liberty to disclose what it is? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-02 19:19 EST --- Updated SPEC is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec?use_mirror=osdn Updated SRPM is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-8-0.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 23:11 EST --- Hey Michael. I'm interested in this package, any chance of an updated version with corrections from comment #10? Note that if the xen mess ever gets figured out in fc6, there will probibly be a 2.6.19 for it, so this may well work in fc6 someday. (At least that is my understanding) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-20 07:37 EST --- The -devel package has Requires: keyutils-lib-dev openssl-dev, both of those need s/dev/devel/ for the -devel package to be installable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-11 17:28 EST --- Updated SPEC is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec?use_mirror=osdn Updated SRPM is here: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-7-0.src.rpm?use_mirror=osdn I will have to get in touch with the kernel package maintainers about eCryptfs in older kernel versions, but I am almost positive that eCryptfs is not in Red Hat kernels prior to 2.6.19, since that would involve some backport work. For now, I have set the kernel version requirement to 2.6.19 or greater. I have also added a -debug package for the header file and the libecryptfs.so file. The libraries in /usr/lib/ecryptfs are dlopen'd. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-11 20:08 EST --- I think you missed what I meant regarding kernel versions. Here's an example of a kernel spec file for a version of kernel-2.6.18: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/kernel/devel/kernel-2.6.spec?rev=1.2834only_with_tag=kernel-2_6_18-1_2834_fc7view=markup Notice these patches: Patch1: patch-2.6.19-rc6.bz2 Patch2: patch-2.6.19-rc6-git10.bz2 Does this mean that a 2.6.18 kernel supports ecryptfs? Probably, I dunno. But that's what I'm looking for in a Require: Remember you're requires is against the functionality of the RPM, not what was released upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-11 20:39 EST --- If ``2.6.18'' is really ``2.6.19-rc6,'' then yes, it does support eCryptfs. I'll ask around about this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-12 01:00 EST --- FC6 2.6.18-1.2849: no 2.6.19 git patches FC6 test 2.6.18-1.2860: no 2.6.19 git patches So FC6 will probably never support it. rawhide 2.6.18-1.2849.fc6 (not yet respun) CVS head holds 2.6.19, so the next rawhide respin will be a 2.6.19 kernel. Therefore, I think requires = 2.6.19 is ok for this case. I re-reviewed your spec and the rpmlint output and I don't see any further problems. One thing to note... In the future, please prepend to your %changelog as you make any changes. This ends my review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-09 20:11 EST --- Sorry, I should have left the FE-NEW blocker since I wasn't sponsored. Fixing that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-08 05:19 EST --- I will provide you a review. It is not an official review as you need a sponsor. rpmlint -i ecryptfs-utils-5-0.src.rpm W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. - This can be ignored. W: ecryptfs-utils no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. -add: URL: http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net W: ecryptfs-utils setup-not-quiet You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example ) - add -q flag to %setup W: ecryptfs-utils rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. - change to %{_configure} E: ecryptfs-utils configure-without-libdir-spec A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure options must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir}. E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/ecryptfs A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - change: /usr/bin to %{_bindir} /usr/lib to %{_libdir} E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0.0.0 A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0 A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. - ditto E: ecryptfs-utils no-buildroot-tag The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must be used in order to allow building the package as non root on some systems. - add: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) You might consider installing rpmdevtools and running fedora-newrpmspec to get a nice template spec file to work from. Templated spec files make it faster for reviewers to review. Additionally: make does not use smp flags (see template spec file) make install does not use DESTDIR (see template spec file) %defattr has missing param (see template spec file) Question for submitter: Is ecryptfs already in the kernel? If it's not, this would be a blocker until it is. Once these changes are made, here is the probably output from rpmlint on the binary rpms: rpmlint -i mock-results/ecryptfs-utils-5-0.i386.rpm E: ecryptfs-utils explicit-lib-dependency libgcrypt You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. - remove dependency on libgcrypt W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. - ignore W: ecryptfs-utils no-version-in-last-changelog The last changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it. - please add a version to the changelog entry: * Mon Dec 04 2006 Mike Halcrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 5-0 W: ecryptfs-utils unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so W: ecryptfs-utils unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so - I believe the problem here is that they were not chmod a+x so they are not stripped... however, see below first. E: ecryptfs-utils library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0.0.0 This package contains a library and provides no %post scriptlet containing a call
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-08 19:01 EST --- Bernard - Thanks for taking the time to look over the package. I have made updates in response to your comments. The new SPEC file is at http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec?use_mirror=osdn. The new source RPM is at http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-6-0.src.rpm?use_mirror=osdn. In response to your question, eCryptfs is in the 2.6.19 mainline kernel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-08 23:06 EST --- rpmlint is much happier now. Here is the output on the srpm and rpm: W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support libraries W: ecryptfs-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so Package mock-builds for FC6. As far as the first one, just to keep lint quit, maybe you'd change the summary from eCryptfs mount helper ... to The eCryptfs mount helper As far as the second regarding libcryptfs.so, it should be removed from the package if it is a development file and you don't intend to provide a -devel package. I see there are still .so files in /usr/lib/ecryptfs although you never stated their purpose. Are they dl'opened modules or develop libraries? It's recommended that the Source directives are direct download links. It's also recommended that your first source sould be Source0: Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-6.tar.bz2 Since its support in the kernel starts at a specific version number, the package should require this number or greater. This is a little more complicated that it sounds, because although a kernel may have a number like 2.6.18, the kernel developers might have (probably did) pulled in additional snapshot patches. You should check with the upstream RPM developers of the kernel or verify for yourself what kernel number (exactly which RPM release) ecryptfs support starts in. MUST Items: - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. Take ownership of %{_libdir}/ecryptfs via a %dir statement or by recommendation below. - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. See previous comments regarding .so files. A couple of recommendations: This is redundant, as make install will do it for you: mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/sbin mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/ecryptfs mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man7 These lines: %{_libdir}/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so %{_libdir}/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so can be replaced with: %{_libdir}/ecryptfs which will include the files and directory and solve the directory ownership problem above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:58 EST --- Hey Michael. From a quick look, it looks like this is your first package, so you will need a sponsor. I am going to add the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker here so sponsors can see your package. You may want to take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review