[00:16] <apw> DalekSec, will have a look
[00:16] <DalekSec> apw: Great, thanks!
[10:58] <xnox> interesting stuff, cgroup namespaces.
[11:04] <apw> no you don't want to use all that complex stuff, you'll break it
[11:05]  * xnox giggles
[11:20] <cking> do we have regression tests for it?
[15:43] <lamont> jsalisbury: aroudn yet?
[15:45] <xnox> cking, yes, it's called systemd in a docker image in lxd container.
[15:45] <xnox> =)
[15:46] <cking> why doesn't that surprise me
[15:51] <jsalisbury> lamont, yes
[15:53] <jsalisbury> lamont, about to update the bug
[15:54] <lamont> cool.  did I maybe convince you to do the for loop?
[15:54] <jsalisbury> lamont, only two kernels left to test in the bisect, then on more after that with a revert of the actual commit.  I'll post then next two to try shortly
[16:01] <lamont> jsalisbury: cool.  my hope was to be done destroying my work setup in minimum time
[16:01] <lamont> because it's getting old
[16:01] <jsalisbury> lamont, yeah, bisecting is a pain
[16:03] <lamont> tbf, it would suck far less if it wasn't my primary worksurface
[16:51] <tseliot> apw: hey, I pinged you about the backport of amdgpu from 4.5, and you recommended that I file a bug report and link the commits to it; I have one more question: would I have to rename that as amdgpu_bpo, or could I simply leave it as it is?
[16:53] <apw> tseliot, how utterly vile is the delta, if its likely to make maintenance huge its better if its separate
[16:55] <tseliot> apw: it's about 230 commits. I'm at 136 and I haven't had to fix up commits (other than whitespace issues) so far
[16:56] <tseliot> apw: I want to make it clear that, if anything fails, I can maintain that code
[16:57]  * apw dries
[16:57] <apw> dies
[16:57] <apw> well i guess its really bjf's call, as he has to work with it
[16:57]  * tseliot prepares a nice coffin
[16:58] <tseliot> the added benefit would be no fglrx ;)
[16:59] <apw> as in it would no longer be required, or no longer work :)
[17:01] <tseliot> the former, and purged too
[17:01] <bjf> tseliot, which series is this for? Xenial?
[17:01] <tseliot> bjf: yep
[17:02] <bjf> tseliot, i'll feel better when you are at commit 230 and still feel everything is fine
[17:03] <tseliot> bjf: so will I ;)
[17:04] <bjf> tseliot, i mostly trust your decision as it _will_ be you fixing any/all problems. but it feels late to be sucking in something this huge.
[17:05] <tseliot> bjf: that is understandable but I didn't have the hardware to work on. I'll let you know how my work goes
[17:05] <bjf> tseliot, ack, thanks
[17:06] <tjaalton> also, I'm preparing i915_bpo for SKL/KBL/BXT..
[17:06] <tjaalton> SKL again, as it's still not done, and shares audio bits with KBL
[17:09]  * apw gets his shit-list out and checks your name is on it
[17:09] <tseliot> :D
[17:09] <apw> and underlined and highlighted in luminious orange
[17:10] <apw> tseliot, oh and you'll prolly have to file FFEs now as that is in the past
[17:11] <tseliot> apw: it won't be a problem
[17:11] <apw> depending if there is anything non-fixy
[17:11] <tseliot> well, it's both things
[17:28] <apw> bug #1545401
[17:57] <apw> stgraber, seems adt testing is broken again: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxc/+bug/1548440
[17:58] <stgraber> passed on all arches but amd64, lets just retry it
[17:59] <stgraber> well, not seeing any retry link on proposed-migration, so guess it's not considered a migration blocker then
[18:00] <apw> stgraber, not passing for me, on anything
[18:00] <apw> http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/status/adt-matrix/xenial-linux-meta.html
[18:00] <apw> stgraber, ^
[18:01] <apw> stgraber, britney is confused by kernels, because triggers for those _switch_ the installed kernel
[18:01] <apw> stgraber, so it doesn't maintain history so there are never regressions there, i intuit them in the adt-matrix for the kernel from actual history
[18:02] <stgraber> so looks like this may be some kind of apparmor bug preventing you from getting an IP somehow
[18:02] <apw> jjohansen, ^
[18:02] <apw> we always love apparmor bugs
[18:03] <stgraber> would be nice if we could get a dmesg dump after that particular failure
[18:03] <apw> stgraber, presumably that only applies in lxc land, else we'd not be able to use the kernel for any testing at all
[18:03] <stgraber> right
[18:04] <stgraber> so that's the current xenial-proposed kernel then?
[18:05]  * stgraber uprades the big test VM
[18:05] <apw> stgraber, yes
[18:25] <stgraber> got a system running the proposed kernel now, creating a container to see what's going on
[18:26] <stgraber> apw: ok, same behavior here, though I have an idea as to what's going on
[18:26] <stgraber> hallyn: around?
[18:26] <stgraber> apw: that kernel brings us cgns support correct?
[18:27] <hallyn> stgraber: yeah
[18:27] <hallyn> though you need the git head lxc
[18:27] <hallyn> to get the moun tpermissions
[18:27] <stgraber> hallyn: so we have adt regressions with the latest kernel and current lxc, would my assumption that lxcfs detects cgns and so doesn't mount /sys/fs/cgroup but old lxc blocks the cgroupfs mount be correct?
[18:28] <hallyn> yup
[18:28] <stgraber> if so, I'll just tag rc2 and upload that to the archive along with my packaging rework, that should fix adt
[18:28] <stgraber> alright, let me re-test with current lxc upstream
[18:28] <hallyn> yeah, the lxd nesting profile allows 'mount,' iirc, which hid that one from me
[18:29] <stgraber> gah, ok, so we need both a new lxc and lxd then
[18:30] <stgraber> ok, so lxd cherry-pick of your fix and new lxc rc, that should do the trick
[18:30] <stgraber> apw: will have both uploaded within the hour
[18:30] <apw> stgraber, sounds good thanks
[18:30] <hallyn> stgraber: yup, unless there's another glitch hiding, but those were working for me over the weekend
[18:34] <stgraber> lxd uploaded
[18:34] <stgraber> going to grab some food and then get tagging for lxc rc2
[18:44] <stgraber> lxc uploaded
[19:03] <apw> stgraber, ack thanks
[19:12] <aiguu_> Does the kernel team hire individuals that wish to get into kernel development without much (or any) kernel experience?
[19:13] <aiguu_> I've got professional experience in other development areas but always found kernel work interesting. 
[19:17] <apw> we have been known to, but it all depends on the roles that are open, not sure what all we have open right now
[19:20] <aiguu_> Thanks-- is the best way to find out to apply or is there someone I could talk to directly? 
[19:21] <bjf> aiguu_, if you apply through the web site for a specific, open req. it gets the attention of the appropriate team
[19:22] <aiguu_> Thanks!
[21:35] <apw> stgraber, hrrmm, seems the new one has a new problem:
[21:35] <apw> raceback (most recent call last):
[21:35] <apw>   File "/tmp/tmp.rGuQP5EXYB", line 101, in <module>
[21:35] <apw>     assert(container.init_pid > 1)
[21:35] <apw> AssertionError
[21:36] <stgraber> crap, lets see
[21:37] <stgraber> hallyn: ^
[21:38] <stgraber> what's weird is that this passed jenkins somehow
[21:39] <hallyn> ?
[21:39] <stgraber> hallyn: rc2 is failing on all arches
[21:40] <stgraber> I'm wondering if it's not my fault though, could be explained by apparmor not loading somehow
[21:40] <hallyn> what exactly is failing.  lxd autotest?  booting at all?
[21:40] <stgraber> hallyn: all the lxc-tests-* are pretty much (https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-xenial/xenial/amd64/l/lxc/20160222_210046@/log.gz)
[21:40] <stgraber> and that's on a non-cgns kernel
[21:41] <hallyn> hm, so it can't be that lxc-container-default-cgns just isn't installed then
[21:43]  * hallyn tries adt locally on proposed
[21:45] <stgraber> I'm setting it up here too, didn't re-install it after I did a clean install on this box
[21:47] <hallyn> PASS: lxc-tests: /usr/bin/lxc-test-apparmor
[21:47] <hallyn> it's a start
[21:50] <hallyn> but im'hanging there
[22:00] <apw> manjo, did you get to test the initramfs-tools in -proposed ?
[22:01] <stgraber> got interupted a bit, back to looking at the adt failure now
[22:02] <stgraber> adt running, maybe I'll get lucky and get the same failure, if not, we'll just blame the DC and hit retry until it passes
[22:02] <manjo> apw, will do it in the next 1/2 hr
[22:02] <stgraber> but most of those tests are offline so I'm unsure how that would be
[22:02] <apw> stgraber, we've failed the same way on 3 arches, so i am suspicious
[22:03] <stgraber> yeah, me too, but I'm surprised that hallyn didn't manage to reproduce it
[22:04] <hallyn> no i think i was hanging differently
[22:04] <hallyn> (maybe my network hiccoughed at the wrong time)
[22:04] <stgraber> what would make the most sense is that I screwed up something with my packaging rework and the apparmor profile doesn't get loaded, I think that would explain all the failures
[22:05] <stgraber> ah ffs, adt is blowing up on me again, I thought pitti said he'd fixed that
[22:05] <apw> stgraber, he fixes that about once a week, its a fragile beastie
[22:05] <stgraber> adt-run [17:04:45]: testing package lxc version 2.0.0~rc2-0ubuntu1
[22:05] <stgraber> adt-run [17:04:45]: build not needed
[22:05] <stgraber> tar: Unexpected EOF in archive
[22:05] <stgraber> tar: Unexpected EOF in archive
[22:05] <stgraber> tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
[22:05] <stgraber> qemu-system-x86_64: terminating on signal 15 from pid 12772
[22:06] <apw> corrupt tarball ?
[22:06] <stgraber> supposedly it's a very rare error, yet I've got it on all my machines even after re-installing both of them with new disks and switching from trusty to xenial :)
[22:07] <apw> heh
[22:08] <stgraber> re-trying, if that doesn't work, I'll just start a trusty VM manually, turn proposed on in there and install lxc manually
[22:08] <hallyn> trusty?
[22:08] <stgraber> s/trusty/xenial/
[22:08] <stgraber> sorry
[22:08] <stgraber> been debugging another issue that's trusty :)
[22:09] <hallyn> just checking
[22:09] <stgraber> gah and yeah, just got the exact same issue again...
[22:10] <stgraber> taking over the canonical-lxd VM again, that's up to date xenial, will save me some setup time. I'm wiping lxc and lxd from it, rebooting and do a clean lxc install, lets see what happens
[22:15] <stgraber> yeah, clearly an apparmor profile...
[22:16] <stgraber>       lxc-start 20160222205626.155 ERROR    lxc_apparmor - lsm/apparmor.c:apparmor_process_label_set:234 - No such file or directory - failed to change apparmor profile to lxc-container-default
[22:16] <stgraber> ok, so that's my fault for sure, now to figure out how I caused this mess
[22:25] <stgraber> found something wrong in the packaging, fixed it and doing a test build now to see if the maintainer scripts make more sense then
[22:25] <stgraber> though since I can't actually reproduce the adt failure, I'm not 100% sure it'll do the trick
[22:33] <apw> stgraber, that is annoying isn't it
[22:33] <stgraber> yeah
[22:33] <stgraber> anyway, sbuild is happy and generated maintscripts look more correct than they did before
[22:34] <stgraber> lets hope that was it, uploading
[22:47] <apw> stgraber, thanks
[23:06] <hallyn> ok so fwiw i expect unprivileged containers in xenial to be temporarily broken.  there's a bad interaction between sforshee's patchset and cgns.  i'm going to test a fix, but it'll take some time to buld
[23:13] <apw> hallyn, cna i build you a kernel or something ?
[23:14] <apw> hallyn, as i was about to upload, and i suspect i want that kernel in there
[23:17] <hallyn> apw: i'm trying http://paste.ubuntu.com/15175046/
[23:18] <hallyn> not sure it's right, but it seems more right than not doing it
[23:18] <hallyn> apw: i'm about to head out for a bit, if you're going to push that somewhere i'll wait forthat, else i'll leave a build going here
[23:20] <hallyn> apw since my server tends to crap out when i build a kernel, i'm happy to wait for you :)
[23:21] <hallyn> eh, i'll leave it building - /me out to get a coffee, bbl
[23:29] <apw> hallyn, i'll let you know whn its built
[23:35] <manjo> apw, is the initramfs in your ppa / 
[23:35] <manjo> ? 
[23:36] <manjo> apw, or is it in proposed ? 
[23:41] <apw> manjo, in proposed
[23:42] <manjo> yes I see it in proposed .. just installed it 
[23:53] <apw> hallyn, http://people.canonical.com/~apw/master-next-xenial/
[23:53] <apw> hallyn, let me know how it fairs
[23:56] <manjo> ports is so slow