[09:02] ppisati, Is any Arm we care about caring about acorn partition type? Just asking because I am looking at that SRU patch that wants to disable it for V and W. Personally I would not miss that type, I guess. [09:02] smb: acorn is dead in the water, no one cares about it [09:03] ppisati, Ok, cool. cheers [09:03] smb: except for people who had/still have an acorn system and want to move their data around [09:04] I guess we will then hear from them sooner or later. Likely later when things move out of proposed. :-P [16:08] jsalisbury, could you build a test kernel for bug #1471029 with b51621abbcb4694b8d2842ce3a66006a60bba6e5 reverted in Vivid ? [16:08] bug 1471029 in libxslt (Ubuntu) "ELF programs with R_386_RELATIVE blocks are badly mapped into memory" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1471029 [18:29] Hi. Could someone nominate https://bugs.launchpad.net/fedora/+bug/1124250 for Precise? [18:29] Ubuntu bug 1124250 in linux (Ubuntu Utopic) "Partially incorrect uid mapping with nfs4/idmapd/ldap-auth" [Low,Fix released] [18:45] pkern: Some of the comments claim 3.2 is fine... [18:45] infinity, was just reading the comments after the fix was supposedly implemented. it doesn' look like the patch fixed their problem [18:46] Oh. And it seems to mention userspace issues. [18:46] might get arges and chiluk to have another look [18:46] Probably needs someone to sort out what package the bug is actually in before opening tasks willy-nilly. [18:46] yep [18:48] rtg sorry switched machines and lost backscrolll what bug are we talking about? [18:50] chiluk: LP: #1124250 [18:50] Launchpad bug 1124250 in linux (Ubuntu Utopic) "Partially incorrect uid mapping with nfs4/idmapd/ldap-auth" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1124250 [18:52] jsalisbury, did you see my note about bug #1471029 ? [18:52] bug 1471029 in libxslt (Ubuntu) "ELF programs with R_386_RELATIVE blocks are badly mapped into memory" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1471029 [19:03] infinity, rtg .. dgadomski is on vacation till Monday iirc. [19:03] I wouldn't pull the patch until he has a chance to weigh in on it. [19:03] iirc there were two separate keys stores depending on the security protocols, but I could be recalling that wrong. He may have only fixed one of them. [19:04] chiwill you make sure it gets on his TODO list ? [19:04] chiluk, will* [19:08] rtg, I'll take a look now [19:10] rtg, I don't see a note in the bug, where can I find it? [19:11] infinity: You are right. It should be a task for linux-lts-trusty on precise. [19:11] chiluk: ^ [19:11] infinity: That or the userland. But I suppose it's hard to support both. [19:11] jsalisbury, in the scroll back for this channel. I asked if you could revert b51621abbcb4694b8d2842ce3a66006a60bba6e5 and build a test kernel [19:11] infinity: Unless the kernel tries to be compatible. [19:11] marga: ^^ [19:11] jsalisbury, you might end up having to revert a couple of patches [19:12] rtg, sorry I must have missed it. Had to reboot a few times today. I'll build the test kernel [19:12] jsalisbury, thanks [19:12] pkern: If you guys can figure out what you think the correct behaviour for both 3.2+userland and 3.13+userland on precise should be, that might help chiluk's team sort out WTF actually needs fixing. ;) [19:12] pkern: I'm not sure I have an opinion on the matter, other than "it should probably work". [19:13] infinity, I haven't looked at that issue for months.. and even then I didn't look at it too thoroughly [19:20] infinity, the problem happens with the -lts-trusty kernel [19:20] on precise. That is a supported usecase, right? [19:20] marga: Right, so then the question becomes "should the lts-trusty kernel attempt to be compatible with the precise userspace, or should the precise userspace be made compatible with both 3.2 and 3.13?" [19:21] I guess the end result is the same, but whee. [19:21] maybe we can have -lts userspace? [19:21] marga: Absolutely a supported usecase, yes. Just need to sort out the facts of the situation and then how to solve it. [19:21] like with xserver-xorg [19:21] Forking lts-foo userspace stuff should be a last resort thing. [19:22] The reason it's done for X is the same as for the kernel: to get more hardware support. [19:22] For other userspace bits, we should either be making the kernel side or the userspace side compatible, not introducing new packages no one will find on their own. [19:22] (ie: we could ship nfs-utils-lts-trusty or whatever, but who would know it existed and install it?) [19:23] I was not able to get it to renew the keys as it's supposed to do. Installing keyutils, libkeyutils, libnfsidmap from trusty + copying /usr/sbin/nfsidmap & /etc/request.keys.d/* from nfs-common from trusty, made the keys become permanent. [19:23] I'm not sure if I can provide anything else that helps [19:24] marga: Kay. The bug is a bit of a mess. Can you try to clarify in a comment which combinations of userspace+kernel do work, and which combinations don't, and hopefully chiluk's minions can go from there to try to figure out which side should be fixed to be compatible. [19:24] ie: if precise + 3.2 works, trusty + 3.13 works, and precise + 3.13 doesn't, or whatever. [19:24] Which is, I think, what you just said. [19:25] Yeah. Although I don't know for sure if trusty + 3.13 leads to permanent keys or renewed keys [19:26] But I'll clarify in the bug [19:26] Ta. [19:27] rtg, it appears bug 1471029 is fixed in mainline 4.2-rc3. I tried a revert of a87938b2 in Wily and Utopic, but the revert requires a backport. Do you thinks its better to backport the revert or work with the bug reporter to perform a reverse bisect and find the upstream fix? Or I guess I can do both in parallel. [19:27] bug 1471029 in linux (Ubuntu) "ELF programs with R_386_RELATIVE blocks are badly mapped into memory" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1471029 [19:27] bjf: ^-- This probably points to a need for more extensive and creative userspace testing, too. If we can figure out without a bug report that userspace nfs or cifs or whatever bits don't work with an LTS backport (or even a new non-lts-backport), that would be nice. [19:28] bjf: Sounds like something cking would be all over if you mentioned it in casual conversation. :P [19:28] i didn't hear that [19:29] cking: Heh. Aren't you usually EOD and offline by now? [19:29] infinity, possibly.. actually just faffing with some packaging while I'm entertaining my kids [19:29] jsalisbury, it could be a combination of patches, including the 2 that we've already applied. [19:30] rtg, got it. I'll dig into it deeper [19:30] infinity, bjf, I don't mind looking at that tomorrow at some point [19:41] cking, it's all yours [19:41] ta