[Touch-packages] [Bug 2012563] Re: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'
Both the Apparmor MR on GitLab to support 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' (https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/-/merge_requests/1005), and the snapd PR to support 'nofail' and other userspace and fs-specific mount options (https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/12712) have been merged into their respective master branches. The snapd changes will be backported into the 2.59 release as well. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012563 Title: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: Fix Committed Bug description: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 2012563] Re: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012563 Title: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: Fix Committed Bug description: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 2012563] Re: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'
Hi Robert, I submitted a PR to allow userspace and filesystem-specific mount options to be validated directly by snapd, since apparmor should only ever see kernel mount options. It should support `nofail` and the functionfs mount options as well as options for most other common filesystems. https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/12712 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012563 Title: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 2012563] Re: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'
I submitted an issue and accompanying PR for this bug on the apparmor GitLab repository. Issue: https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/-/issues/312 PR: https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/-/merge_requests/1004 ** Bug watch added: gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/-/issues #312 https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/-/issues/312 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012563 Title: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 2012563] Re: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'
Attached is a patch which adds support for 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Since 'strictatime' already existed and documentation suggested 'nostrictatime' should already be included as well, 'nostrictatime' is a simple inclusion. The kernel supports `MS_LAZYTIME` as `(1 << 25)`, so I added that to `parser/mount.h` with the corresponding 'lazytime' and 'nolazytime' options in `parser/mount.cc`. More work is needed to understand userspace mount options such as 'nofail' which mount supports, so this patch does not include any fixes in that regard. ** Patch added: "Patch adding mount options nostrictatime, lazytime, and nolazytime" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+attachment/5659128/+files/0001-Bug-2012563-added-mount-options-nostrictatime-lazyti.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012563 Title: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 2012563] Re: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'
The bitflags for the other mount options are defined in `include/uapi/linux/mount.h` of the Linux source tree, and there is no such definitions for 'nofail', so I don't think adding kernel mappings of this form (e.g. MS_RDONLY) is the solution. These options are supported by 'mount' using userspace option mappings of the form MNT_MS_NOFAIL (see: https://github.com/util-linux/util- linux/blob/master/libmount/src/optmap.c). Perhaps a similar approach could be used by apparmor to validate fs-independent userspace mount options such as nofail? Note, however, that the 'lazytime' option does have a kernel option mapping: `#define MS_LAZYTIME (1<<25)` (in `include/uapi/linux/mount.h`). There is no option mapping for (1<<25) in `parser/mount.h`. Was this option deliberately excluded, or can it be added? If it can be added, then 'nolazytime' is simply a matter of clearing the 'lazytime' bit. There already exists a mapping for 'strictatime', so it should be simple enough for me to add a mapping for `nostrictatime` which sets 0 and clears MS_STRICTATIME. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012563 Title: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 2012563] [NEW] unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'
Public bug reported: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). ** Affects: apparmor (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Summary changed: - 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' mount option unsupported + unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012563 Title: unsupported mount options: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime' Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: The following mount options are unsupported: 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'lazytime', and 'nolazytime'. Other mount options have mappings from options to bitflags in `parser/mount.cc`, and the bitflags themselves are defined in `parser/mount.h`. Should the aforementioned mount options be included as well, or is there a reason why they are excluded? snapd currently assumes that they are supported, resulting in an error from the apparmor parser when a snap is connected with those options. I'd be happy to file a PR to add these mappings if I knew what the new bitflags should be defined as, and if/how they should be used elsewhere. For completeness: 1) This is a question/bug regarding the source code from the 'ubuntu/devel' branch (and presumably other branches), not a particular release. 2) Same as 1). 3) I expected the apparmor parser to recognize the 'nofail', 'nostrictatime', 'laztime', and 'nolazytime' mount options. 4) The apparmor parser threw an error with message "unsupported mount options" (from within `parser/mount.cc`). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/2012563/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 2009508] Re: file conflict on /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dri/i915_dri.so
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 2006744 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2006744 Dan, that sounds good, I didn't realize it was marked as private. I made it public now. Thanks! ** Information type changed from Private to Public -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to mesa in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2009508 Title: file conflict on /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dri/i915_dri.so Status in subiquity: New Status in mesa package in Ubuntu: New Status in mesa-amber package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: Attempted to install Ubuntu 23.04 in GNOME Boxes, allocating 8GiB RAM and 20GiB virtual disk space. The installation failed, and it appears to be a result of failure to install 'ubuntu-restricted-addons', but there was also a problem when trying to install 78-libgl1-mesa- dri_22.3.6. The complete console dump is attached. ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 23.04 Package: subiquity (unknown) ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.19.0-21.21-generic 5.19.7 Uname: Linux 5.19.0-21-generic x86_64 NonfreeKernelModules: zfs zunicode zavl icp zcommon znvpair ApportVersion: 2.26.0-0ubuntu2 Architecture: amd64 CasperMD5CheckResult: pass CasperVersion: 1.480 CurtinAptConfig: /var/log/installer/subiquity-curtin-apt.conf Date: Mon Mar 6 15:56:16 2023 ExecutablePath: /snap/ubuntu-desktop-installer/804/bin/subiquity/subiquity/cmd/server.py InterpreterPath: /snap/ubuntu-desktop-installer/804/usr/bin/python3.8 LiveMediaBuild: Ubuntu 23.04 "Lunar Lobster" - Alpha amd64 (20230301.1) Lsusb: Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 004 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 003 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Lsusb-t: /: Bus 04.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=uhci_hcd/2p, 12M /: Bus 03.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=uhci_hcd/2p, 12M /: Bus 02.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=uhci_hcd/2p, 12M /: Bus 01.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=ehci-pci/6p, 480M MachineType: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) ProcAttrCurrent: snap.hostname-desktop-installer.subiquity-server (complain) ProcCmdline: /snap/hostname-desktop-installer/804/usr/bin/python3.8 -m subiquity.cmd.server --use-os-prober --storage-version=2 --postinst-hooks-dir=/snap/hostname-desktop-installer/804/etc/subiquity/postinst.d ProcEnviron: LANG=C.UTF-8 PATH=(custom, no user) ProcKernelCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/casper/vmlinuz layerfs-path=minimal.standard.live.squashfs --- quiet splash Python3Details: /usr/bin/python3.11, Python 3.11.1, python3-minimal, 3.11.1-3 PythonDetails: N/A RebootRequiredPkgs: Error: path contained symlinks. SnapChannel: SnapRevision: 804 SnapUpdated: False SnapVersion: 0+git.6ff56fd7 SourcePackage: subiquity Title: install failed crashed with CalledProcessError UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install) dmi.bios.date: 04/01/2014 dmi.bios.release: 0.0 dmi.bios.vendor: SeaBIOS dmi.bios.version: rel-1.15.0-0-g2dd4b9b3f840-prebuilt.qemu.org dmi.chassis.type: 1 dmi.chassis.vendor: QEMU dmi.chassis.version: pc-i440fx-6.2 dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnSeaBIOS:bvrrel-1.15.0-0-g2dd4b9b3f840-prebuilt.qemu.org:bd04/01/2014:br0.0:svnQEMU:pnStandardPC(i440FX+PIIX,1996):pvrpc-i440fx-6.2:cvnQEMU:ct1:cvrpc-i440fx-6.2:sku: dmi.product.name: Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) dmi.product.version: pc-i440fx-6.2 dmi.sys.vendor: QEMU To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/subiquity/+bug/2009508/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
