| riiot232 | hello | 02:33 |
|---|---|---|
| === ricab is now known as ricab|brb | ||
| === ricab|brb is now known as ricab | ||
| === alan_g is now known as alan_g_ | ||
| === ricab is now known as ricab|lunch | ||
| coreycb | bdmurray: thanks for helping move bug 1809454 along. would you be able to take a look at bionic today? | 14:16 |
| ubottu | bug 1809454 in OpenStack Compute (nova) queens "[SRU] nova rbd auth fallback uses cinder user with libvirt secret" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1809454 | 14:16 |
| === ricab|lunch is now known as ricab | ||
| cpaelzer | coreycb: is the 18.04.2 freeze lifted already ? | 14:39 |
| coreycb | cpaelzer: ahh, maybe not. | 14:39 |
| coreycb | cpaelzer: do you think we can re-evaluate this MIR? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/placement/+bug/1805691 | 15:01 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1805691 in placement (Ubuntu) "[MIR] placement" [Undecided,Expired] | 15:01 |
| coreycb | the security team ACKed it I believe | 15:02 |
| coreycb | i don't think nova is going to drop their placement support until train (corresponds to Ubuntu E release) but it would be nice if we could move forward with charm changes | 15:02 |
| cpaelzer | coreycb: yes and done | 15:16 |
| coreycb | thanks very much cpaelzer | 15:16 |
| seb128 | if some wonder why retracing are failing recently in disco, bug #1815774 | 15:23 |
| ubottu | bug 1815774 in binutils (Ubuntu) "binutils 2.32 update breaks debug symbols in disco" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1815774 | 15:23 |
| seb128 | doko, ^ | 15:24 |
| riiot232 | hello | 15:44 |
| riiot232 | is some one there.....? | 15:44 |
| LtWorf | riiot232: no :P | 15:47 |
| riiot232 | :l | 15:48 |
| riiot232 | why? | 15:48 |
| riiot232 | where is every one at? | 15:48 |
| LtWorf | (i was kidding) | 15:48 |
| riiot232 | ok. | 15:48 |
| riiot232 | so are u dev? | 15:48 |
| LtWorf | anyway i'm more active on debian, which is oftc rather than freenode | 15:48 |
| riiot232 | ok | 15:49 |
| bdmurray | seb128: How did you find bug 1815774? Were you manually retracing something or looking at logs / failures to retrace? | 15:50 |
| ubottu | bug 1815774 in binutils (Ubuntu) "binutils 2.32 update breaks debug symbols in disco" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1815774 | 15:50 |
| LtWorf | riiot232: very minor contributions in debian, that then end up in ubuntu | 15:51 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, I wondered why we got a few bugs invalidated by the retracers so I decided to try to sigsegv g-c-c locally and see what was the problem | 15:51 |
| riiot232 | LtWorf ok | 15:51 |
| riiot232 | how do I say ur name? | 15:51 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, which gave me the warnings described in the bug, which I google for, found thar arch bug... | 15:51 |
| bdmurray | seb128: Hmm, I thought I was subscribed to apport-failed-retrace but didn't notice anything. I'll have to dig. | 15:52 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/1815703 | 15:52 |
| ubottu | Error: launchpad bug 1815703 not found | 15:52 |
| seb128 | https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/1815704 | 15:52 |
| ubottu | Error: launchpad bug 1815704 not found | 15:52 |
| seb128 | if you want some examples | 15:52 |
| bdmurray | seb128: cool, thanks | 15:52 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, they didn't got tagged apport-failed-retrace it looks like, just untagged | 15:53 |
| bdmurray | what's up with that ascii art? | 15:53 |
| seb128 | so maybe an apport bug there | 15:53 |
| seb128 | lol, good question :) | 15:53 |
| bdmurray | ah, well then | 15:53 |
| bdmurray | wow, pretty colors too | 15:54 |
| chiluk | So I discovered today that my ubuntu one login has 2fa enabled, but since I'm no longer at Canonical, I'm no longer in the correct groups that tell Ubuntu One I need to see 2fa configuration pages... Seems like we should auto-enroll all members of ex-canonical in sso-2f-testers *(or maybe some other group).. The strangest thing was that I was able to log in to ubuntu one using only my user/pass, but when trying to enable | 15:55 |
| chiluk | livepatch it required my 2fa .. | 15:55 |
| chiluk | who owns ubuntu sso / one login now? | 15:57 |
| cjwatson | the snap store team | 15:57 |
| cjwatson | What you describe is interesting; I've heard people with this problem before but not the specifics about logging into login.u.c directly vs. via something like livepatch | 15:58 |
| cjwatson | Though it's possibly related to the same kind of thing that caused https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-identity-provider/+bug/1073074 | 15:58 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1073074 in Canonical SSO provider "sso prevents login when 2f required but user doesn't have 2F feature available" [High,Confirmed] | 15:58 |
| chiluk | Cool I'll move conversation to that bug.. | 15:59 |
| cjwatson | I'm not certain it's the same thing, so I'd suggest a new bug | 15:59 |
| cjwatson | Can always be duped later | 15:59 |
| chiluk | Yeah I'll proceed with due diligence. | 15:59 |
| cjwatson | I don't think auto-adding people to a team is the solution | 15:59 |
| chiluk | I'm not sure what the right answer is either.. nor do I have the power any more. | 16:00 |
| cjwatson | Well, it seems that if a user is set to require 2FA then we should show them 2FA ... | 16:00 |
| cjwatson | (which is what I thought the behaviour was, but the difference between direct login and via livepatch suggests maybe not on all code paths) | 16:01 |
| chiluk | right.. | 16:03 |
| chiluk | also explains why I haven't noticed till now.. | 16:03 |
| cjwatson | chiluk: livepatch via CLI or OpenID? | 16:05 |
| chiluk | It was via the "Software & Updates" application... I forget what the actual runtime is for that. | 16:05 |
| cjwatson | chiluk: OK, worth also trying something that's definitely OpenID, e.g. open a private browser window and try to sign into LP using it | 16:06 |
| chiluk | although I think I hit this via cli before as well when following the livepatch instructions. | 16:06 |
| cjwatson | I have to go out shortly though | 16:06 |
| chiluk | now I'm really confused.. via a private browser it required 2fa.. | 16:07 |
| chiluk | so it could likely be the same issue. | 16:07 |
| === alan_g is now known as alan_g_ | ||
| cjwatson | chiluk: And double-check direct login to login.u.c via a private browser? | 16:18 |
| chiluk | yeah also requires 2fa.. | 16:20 |
| cjwatson | so I'm not sure what you mean by "I was able to log in to ubuntu one using only my user/pass" | 16:20 |
| chiluk | I was just added to https://launchpad.net/~sso-2f-testers ... and can now configure the 2fa devices.. | 16:20 |
| cjwatson | oh | 16:20 |
| cjwatson | in that case all tests after the point when you were added to that team should be flagged as uninteresting for the purpose of this bug | 16:20 |
| cjwatson | evidence now invalid | 16:20 |
| chiluk | yeah. | 16:20 |
| chiluk | I'm not sure when that exactly happened. | 16:21 |
| cjwatson | LP should have the timestamp | 16:21 |
| chiluk | right but I dont' have timestamps on my browsers. | 16:21 |
| cjwatson | ah | 16:21 |
| cjwatson | well, it happened at 15:53:25 | 16:22 |
| cjwatson | which was a couple of minutes before you asked about it here | 16:22 |
| cjwatson | so anything you did in response to my questions can't be useful evidence | 16:22 |
| chiluk | yeah. | 16:22 |
| cjwatson | oh well | 16:22 |
| chiluk | cjwatson want to remove me from sso-2f-testers to retest? | 16:23 |
| chiluk | does it matter? | 16:23 |
| chiluk | I'm willing to help out for a few minutes if you are intrigued. | 16:23 |
| chiluk | I figure you getting removed from canonical might be more prohibitive for testing. | 16:23 |
| cjwatson | (a) I can't do that since I'm not an admin of sso-2f-testers, (b) we can set up a similar situation with a local SSO deployment, (c) I have to go out | 16:24 |
| cjwatson | so thanks but we should be able to manage :) | 16:25 |
| chiluk | sure thing.. | 16:25 |
| chiluk | it's been nice seeing an old-familiar nic... | 16:25 |
| chiluk | I haven't played here in far too long. | 16:25 |
| roadmr | chiluk: hey, I enabled your 2fa group membership, so maybe I can help, but give me a few because I'm busy atm | 16:26 |
| chiluk | yeah my day is pretty busy too.. | 16:27 |
| cjwatson | ah, roadmr is likely in a better position to help with this than I am anyway, excellent | 16:27 |
| chiluk | roadmr: I described what I was seeing here : https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-identity-provider/+bug/1073074 I think the two are probably the same. | 16:35 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1073074 in Canonical SSO provider "sso prevents login when 2f required but user doesn't have 2F feature available" [High,Confirmed] | 16:35 |
| roadmr | chiluk: ok, reading the bug now and I checked the backlog as well | 16:37 |
| roadmr | chiluk: ok so to summarize, as an ex-canonicaler, you saw different 2fa requirements for API (i.e. gnome-software) vs. web (login.ubuntu.com) ? | 16:41 |
| roadmr | chiluk: the code does have custom logic for how to decide 2fa-ness for someone in canonical vs. someone in ~sso-2f-testers | 16:41 |
| roadmr | so that's where I'd start looking but it does look like a bug. I'll investigate! | 16:42 |
| roadmr | chiluk: and to be clear, are things working well for you now? | 16:42 |
| chiluk | Yeah things are fine now. | 16:46 |
| chiluk | the weirdest thing is that openid/web login seemed to work fine and did not require 2fa... | 16:46 |
| roadmr | yes, that's weird | 16:47 |
| chiluk | and I'm positive of this because I've been using launchpad for years without my yubikey.. | 16:47 |
| chiluk | today I had to go grab my old yubikey that I had previously had linked. | 16:47 |
| chiluk | all my devices were still configured. | 16:47 |
| roadmr | chiluk: which email address do you use to log in these days? (you can pm it to me if you don't want to expose it here) | 16:47 |
| roadmr | this is so I can look you up and check your account setup, so I can then trace how the logic handles your login attempts via api vs. web | 16:48 |
| chiluk | Including my old @canonical authenticator app. *(I actually wonder if that is a mini security hole)... | 16:48 |
| chiluk | is there a better channel for this? no need to spam everyone here. | 16:49 |
| roaksoax | ~/win 4 | 17:01 |
| sparr | is there an appropriate channel for support-in-investigating-and-filing-a-bug-report in a mainline kernel package? | 17:20 |
| rbasak | sparr: mainline as in upstream? Or Ubuntu? | 17:22 |
| rbasak | For Ubuntu, #ubuntu-kernel | 17:22 |
| sparr | thanks | 17:29 |
| roaksoax | /win/win 4 | 17:50 |
| === realitix_ is now known as realitix | ||
| seb128 | wgrant, cjwatson, hey, can we open disco for translations? | 23:05 |
| wgrant | seb128: I believe it's just blocked on UTC turning it on | 23:10 |
| wgrant | Oh, or maybe not | 23:11 |
| wgrant | Hm | 23:11 |
| wgrant | Apparently we never initialised it | 23:11 |
| wgrant | Things are a bit on fire atm, may be able to look later. | 23:11 |
| seb128 | wgrant, no hurry, thx | 23:13 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!