[02:30] <mup> PR snapd#9556 closed: tests: testing new fedora 33 image <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9556>
[07:09] <zyga-x240> good morning mvo
[07:10] <zyga-x240> mvo: I had a look at the changes to the export manager but ended up just going to sleep yesterday; I think today may be better as lately we are sleep deprived by Lucy who is going through the 2-yo hyperactivity phase
[07:11] <mup> PR snapd#9664 closed: spread: disable unattended-upgrades on ubuntu <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9664>
[07:14] <mvo> good morning zyga-x240
[07:14] <mvo> zyga-x240: no worries! thanks for letting me know
[07:22] <mup> PR snapd#9652 closed: o/servicestate: unlock state before calling wrappers in doServiceControl <Bug> <Created by stolowski> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9652>
[07:23] <zyga-x240> mvo: I saw that the uboot bug was addressed
[07:24] <zyga-x240> mvo: I understand this unblocks gadget updates across the pi lineup
[07:24] <zyga-x240> mvo: and that this was an additional blocker for uc20
[07:24] <mvo> zyga-x240: yeah, it's pretty good
[07:24] <mvo> zyga-x240: I need to check if we have updated pi/edge already
[07:25] <mvo> zyga-x240: but the debs got udpated, once that is in we will look into fixing it on a broader scope
[07:25] <zyga-x240> mvo: the debs got updated yes
[07:26] <zyga-x240> please note that while great, this makes the pi break on the dbt skew
[07:26] <zyga-x240> only fresh installs are okay
[07:26] <mvo> zyga-x240: yes, we are working on this too
[07:26] <zyga-x240> but it's inevitable
[07:26] <zyga-x240> I know, that's really cool
[07:26] <mvo> zyga-x240: and there is work to use piboot so that we have proper a/b boot with dtbs, so it's advancing on all fronts
[07:26] <mvo> (also not as fast as I wish we would go)
[07:27] <zyga-x240> mvo: I heard about that as well, but I was not sure if that has already started to approach snapd side
[07:27] <zyga-x240> will it be another bootloader variant in our code or will there be some middleware-like abstraction via hooks
[07:28] <mvo> zyga-x240: I think it will be bootloader like
[07:28] <mvo> zyga-x240: maybe a variant of uboot, i.e. if uboot finds config.txt then it will behave slightly differently
[07:28] <mvo> zyga-x240: but the details are not clear yet, we are still in the prototype phase for this
[07:30] <zyga-x240> mvo: I recall that there was some resitence from the pi foundation to help us in any way that would require code changes
[07:31] <zyga-x240> mvo: do you know how A/B or try mode boot will work?
[07:31] <mvo> zyga-x240: dave told me he tested it from pi3 onward
[07:31] <mvo> zyga-x240: but *maybe* we loose the pi2 :(
[07:31] <mvo> zyga-x240: not sure yet, also this seems to be super recent firmware changes
[07:31] <zyga-x240> ah, that's reassuring then
[07:32] <zyga-x240> perhaps it is an improvement to the boot process
[07:32] <zyga-x240> any kind of conditionality or writable state accessible from the native bootloader is sufficient
[07:32] <zyga-x240> but you know that :)
[07:32] <zyga-x240> I hope they changed their minds on it
[07:33] <mborzecki> morning
[07:33] <zyga-x240> hey mborzecki
[07:33] <mborzecki> finally got my tires swapped to the winter set
[07:33] <mvo> zyga-x240: I think they did but we helped them with that AIUI
[07:34] <mvo> good morning mborzecki
[07:34] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: just in time for global warming ;-)
[07:34] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: haha right
[07:34] <mborzecki> mvo: hey
[07:34] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: I really wish we have a month of -5 to -10 and lots of snow
[07:34] <zyga-x240> I miss that from my childhood
[07:34] <mvo> mborzecki: when you have a few cycles, could you please look at 9497 ? hopefully straightforward
[07:34] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: no thanks ;) you're free to enjoy winter in canada though
[07:35] <mborzecki> mvo: sure
[07:35] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: could as well be a screen saver unless I'm there :)
[07:35] <mvo> zyga-x240: or move to minessota
[07:35] <mvo> zyga-x240: the cold there is quite impressive
[07:35] <zyga-x240> mvo: my new boss tries to move me to Italy instead ;-)
[07:36] <zyga-x240> I wish we had that magic house with a handle that can open in four different ways, to go to four different places
[07:36] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: tbh this sounds quite nice
[07:36] <zyga-x240> a house by the sea, a house in the mountains, in big city and that big black void IIRC
[07:36] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: move to the south and enjoy the all year round cycling season
[07:36] <zyga-x240> (I love that movie)
[07:37] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: well, now I'd be happy if lucy stopped running around at 1AM every day :)
[07:37] <zyga-x240> I guess that will pass
[07:38] <mvo> zyga-x240: it will pass and in 10y happen again ;)
[07:38] <mvo> zyga-x240: or maybe 15y
[07:38] <zyga-x240> mvo: yeah but when she has her own room that's okay :D
[07:39] <mvo> zyga-x240: heh … good point!
[07:39] <zyga-x240> mvo: I will look at patching spread soon
[07:39] <zyga-x240> I'm split between a fork and proper upstream cooperation
[07:40] <zyga-x240> I'm going to add new backends to it
[07:40] <zyga-x240> mainly to use a muxpi-exposed ad-hoc new API as "cloud"
[07:40] <zyga-x240> initially a 1-1 but later 1-n model (one host talking to a number of configured muxpi's over lan, each exposing some real hardware and features)
[07:40] <zyga-x240> I guess time will tell, I haven't touched this yet
[07:45] <mvo> zyga-x240: nice, looking forward to that
[07:45] <mvo> zyga-x240: more spread development is most welcome
[08:03] <mborzecki> fun thing i noticed in the serial log of a failed test: ` Error syncing keystore file /usr/share/secureboot/updates/dbx/dbxupdate_x64.bin`
[08:04] <zyga-x240> interesting :)
[08:07] <pstolowski> morning
[08:07] <zyga-x240> hey pawel :)
[08:07] <pstolowski> heya
[08:20] <mvo> hey pstolowski !
[08:21] <pstolowski> o/
[08:27] <mborzecki> pstolowski: hey
[08:27] <mborzecki> somehow debug logs in #9640 make no sense
[08:27] <mup> PR #9640: tests/nested/manual/core20-save: verify handling of ubuntu-save with different system variants  <Run nested> <UC20> <⛔ Blocked> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9640>
[08:31] <pstolowski> mborzecki: hey; merge master, this will fix lxd-services-smoke failure
[08:33] <mborzecki> pstolowski: it's the test changed by the PR, the debug output makes no sense, things which should have been there given the environment variables are not present
[08:33] <mborzecki> it's as if the env variables are not set, or something overwrites them
[08:36] <pedronis> mborzecki: nested.sh might overwrite some stuff?
[08:37] <mborzecki> pedronis: it sets some things but it should not overwrite NESTED_{ENABLE_TPM,ENABLE_SECURE_BOOT,BUILD_SNAPD_FROM_CURRENT}
[08:38] <mborzecki> pedronis: otoh, the debug output suggest that NESTED_BUILD_SNAPD_FROM_CURRENT was not set, because the gadget snap was most likely not repacked
[08:39] <pedronis> mborzecki: remember that there is some form of image caching
[08:40] <pedronis> maybe it's bugggy in terms of reusing things even if they were built with different params ?
[08:40] <mborzecki> pedronis: this is a manual test and supposedly nothing ran before it
[08:40] <mvo> pedronis: I re-read your comments on 9667 again this morning - is https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9667/files#diff-3dedbc3a1986cf905aca293ca6d16560d297253859ecaa8bcea2b7dab7143b3cR1360 what you suggested?
[08:40] <mup> PR #9667: devicestate: implement boot.HasFDESetupHook <Skip spread> <Squash-merge> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9667>
[08:41] <pedronis> mvo: yes, that looks like what I had in mind
[08:41] <mvo> pedronis: nice, let me add tests then
[08:41] <pstolowski> mborzecki: fwtw we do set NESTED_IMAGE_ID in some manual/ tests
[08:42] <pedronis> mborzecki: spread bug?  I suppose you should sprinkle "env" calls around
[08:51] <pedronis> mvo: ask my review again in it when you think it's ready
[08:56] <mvo> pedronis: I just added tests, so a quick look would be good
[08:56] <mborzecki> mvo: what shall we do with #9633?
[08:56] <mup> PR #9633: github: run nested suite when commit is pushed to release branch <Run nested> <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9633>
[08:57] <pedronis> mvo: I put it back into my queue
[09:17] <mvo> pstolowski: could you please have a look at 8943 when you have some spare cycles?
[09:17] <pstolowski> mvo: yes
[09:17] <mvo> \o/
[09:21] <pstolowski> it has conflict though
[09:22] <pstolowski> jamesh: hey, can you merge master ^ if still around?
[09:23] <jamesh> pstolowski: doing it now.
[09:24] <pstolowski> ty
[09:34] <jamesh> pstolowski: I've pushed up a fix for the merge conflict.  Thanks for looking into this.
[09:45] <pstolowski> jamesh: thanks, i'll get to it shortly
[09:52] <mup> PR snapd#9497 closed: usersession/agent: have session agent connect to the D-Bus session bus <Created by jhenstridge> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9497>
[09:52] <mup> PR snapd#9641 closed: o/servicestate: preserve order of services on snap restart <Bug> <Services ⚙️> <Created by stolowski> <Merged by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9641>
[09:56] <mborzecki> funny how that core20-save test works just fine when running on google from local spread :/
[10:19] <pedronis> mborzecki: I see some issues with #9659
[10:19] <mup> PR #9659: osutil: add KernelCommandLineKeyValue; boot: refactor ModeAnd...FromKernelCommandLine <Squash-merge> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9659>
[10:23] <mborzecki> pedronis: hm good catch label != "" and empty mode, looks like it would hit an internal error in cmd_initramfs_mounts in that case, and other call sites ignore the label and just look at the mode
[10:31] <mborzecki> heh, gorename just paniced on me when trying to rename KernelCommandLineKeyValue
[10:34] <mborzecki> backtrace --> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/zcywxYtfB6/
[10:45] <vidal72[m]> jamesh: is this still needed for snap? https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/pull/443
[10:45] <mup> PR flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal#443: Don't use AppArmor to detect snap confined clients <Created by jhenstridge> <https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/pull/443>
[10:46] <jamesh> vidal72[m]: yeah.  We'd like to get that in.
[10:46] <jamesh> vidal72[m]: I can look at rebasing if that'd help
[10:47] <vidal72[m]> it may help yes
[10:54] <jamesh> vidal72[m]: sorry for not being more active on this.  I got swamped with other work, and it wasn't clear what would have been needed to get it landed back then.
[11:05] <mborzecki> pedronis: i've updated #9659
[11:05] <mup> PR #9659: osutil: add KernelCommandLineKeyValue; boot: refactor ModeAnd...FromKernelCommandLine <Squash-merge> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9659>
[11:20] <mborzecki> mvo: are you updating #9667 or should i push the tweaks there?
[11:20] <mup> PR #9667: devicestate: implement boot.HasFDESetupHook <Skip spread> <Squash-merge> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9667>
[11:37] <pedronis> mborzecki: thx, will look in a bit
[12:08] <mup> PR snapd#9661 closed: osutil/disks: add DiskFromName to get a disk using a udev name <Simple 😃> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9661>
[12:09] <pedronis> mborzecki: reviewed
[12:20] <mborzecki> pedronis: thanks, added a proposal of a name for that var in a comment
[12:24] <ijohnson> morning folks
[12:24] <ijohnson> mborzecki: are you working on addressing pedronis' feedback on 9659
[12:24] <ijohnson> ?
[12:28] <mborzecki> ijohnson: yeah
[12:29] <ijohnson> k, thank you !
[12:32] <pedronis> mvo: I reviewed #9656
[12:32] <mup> PR #9656: devicestate: support "storage-safety" defaults during install <Run nested> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9656>
[12:33] <pedronis> degville: ijohnson: ^ there's a log message there where native speaker input could be valuable
[12:33] <ijohnson> sure I can have a look
[12:35] <ijohnson> responded
=== msalvatore_ is now known as msalvatore
[12:36] <pedronis> mborzecki: thx, better but I proposed a slight tweak on the name, sorry. mostly is unclear if "mock" is relevant there or not
[12:38] <pedronis> ijohnson: thanks, your message sounds good to me
[12:39] <ijohnson> pedronis: mvo: did y'all see my comment in the SU doc about the uc20 regression?
[12:39] <degville> pedronis: ijohnson: me too, although I'm trying to think of something other than 'due', as it could imply prefer-unencrypted was unintentionally set.
[12:39]  * ijohnson has no strong attachment to the word "due"
[12:40] <pedronis> ah, language is hard
[12:40] <pedronis> ijohnson: yes, sounds something to discuss in the standup
[12:40] <degville> turtles all the way down.
[12:40] <ijohnson> pedronis: ok
[13:00]  * pstolowski lunch
[13:34] <mvo> mborzecki: \o/ for updating 9667
[13:35] <mvo> pedronis: thanks for the review!
[13:38] <pedronis> pstolowski: is #9409 ready for re-reviews?
[13:38] <mup> PR #9409: cmd/snap: implement 'snap validate' command <validation-sets :white_check_mark:> <⛔ Blocked> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9409>
[13:38] <mup> PR snapd#9667 closed: devicestate: implement boot.HasFDESetupHook <Skip spread> <Squash-merge> <Created by mvo5> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9667>
[13:43] <mup> PR snapd#9670 opened: devicestate: make checkEncryption fde-setup hook aware <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9670>
[13:46] <pstolowski> pedronis: yes
[13:49] <pedronis> pstolowski: ok, I put it back into my queue
[13:53] <mup> PR snapd#9660 closed: gadget/gadget.go: allow system-recovery-{image,select} as roles in gadget.yaml <Needs Samuele review> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9660>
[14:21] <mup> PR snapcraft#3381 opened: multipass build provider: check if instance exists before deleting <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3381>
[14:30] <mborzecki> pstolowski: pushed a commit with NESTED_IMAGE_ID to #9640
[14:30] <mup> PR #9640: tests/nested/manual/core20-save: verify handling of ubuntu-save with different system variants  <Run nested> <UC20> <⛔ Blocked> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9640>
[14:37] <pedronis> pstolowski: are you blocked right now?
[14:38] <mup> PR snapd#9659 closed: osutil: add KernelCommandLineKeyValue; boot: refactor ModeAnd...FromKernelCommandLine <Squash-merge> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9659>
[14:39] <ijohnson> \o/
[14:39] <mvo> thanks ijohnson !
[14:40] <ijohnson> thanks for merging mvo!
[14:41] <pstolowski> pedronis: not really; but i think i won't start new validation sets PR until existing ones are ok'ed?
[14:41] <pedronis> pstolowski: mostly asking if a re-review of the client one can wait tomorrow?
[14:42] <pstolowski> pedronis: yes that's fine. when you ack the client api bit then i'll update the second existing PR to match
[14:51] <mvo> 8929 needs a second review, should be relatively easy I hope
[14:54]  * cachio lunch
[16:16] <pstolowski> looking
[16:28] <pstolowski> +1
[16:45] <jdstrand> amurray: would you ming giving https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9263 a final review from security? (I commented on the base decl and removal of device-tree only)
[16:45] <mup> PR #9263: interfaces/fpga: add fpga interface <Needs Samuele review> <Needs security review> <Squash-merge> <Created by alfonsosanchezbeato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9263>
[16:54] <ijohnson> .........................................
[16:55] <ijohnson> why does uboot.go refer to the u-boot bootloader as "uboot", but gadget.yaml requires "u-boot"
[16:55]  * ijohnson sighes heavily
[16:55] <ijohnson> pedronis: I could use some help here if you have some time
[16:55] <ijohnson> not sure which we should re-name
[16:55] <pedronis> ijohnson: none
[16:56] <pedronis> I'm not quite sure why it matters
[16:56] <ijohnson> I suppose I could just silently alias "u-boot" as "uboot"
[16:56] <pedronis> ijohnson: I fear I'm missing something here
[16:56] <ijohnson> well firstly the names are inconsistent which is just unfortunate as a fact of matter
[16:57] <pedronis> kind of yes
[16:57] <ijohnson> secondly, I am trying to do the ForGadget thing which uses the name of the bootloader from the gadget.yaml to know which bootloader it should try
[16:57] <pedronis> that's the part I don't get
[16:57] <pedronis> why the gadget.yaml
[16:57] <pedronis> that was not what we discussed
[16:57] <ijohnson> mmm
[16:57] <pedronis> maybe is needed for lk
[16:57] <pedronis> but is not what we discussed
[16:58]  * zyga-mbp looks at https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9546
[16:58] <ijohnson> so if we don't use gadget.yaml how do we know what bootloader is in a given extracted gadget tree ?
[16:58] <mup> PR #9546: overlord: add inert export manager <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9546>
[16:58] <pedronis> ijohnson: we look at the .conf file, as we did before
[16:58] <ijohnson> are we supposed to just grep for all "*.conf" files and see which one matches ?
[16:59] <ijohnson> I guess we could do that, it feels again like we are guessing since folks could put whatever .conf they want there in addition to uboot.conf
[16:59] <pedronis> ijohnson: the change I had in mind was very simple
[16:59] <ijohnson> for example
[16:59] <pedronis> ijohnson: but that's how things worked already
[16:59] <pedronis> we are not trying to change how that works
[17:00] <ijohnson> I guess I was just trying to make that nicer since it feels silly how much guessing we end up doing
[17:00] <pedronis> we are just changing the implementaion details
[17:00] <pedronis> ijohnson: well it changes the mechanics quite a bit
[17:00] <pedronis> probably not a good thing to do before 22
[17:00] <pedronis> at this point
[17:01] <ijohnson> pedronis: did you mean not a good thing to do before 20 ?
[17:01] <pedronis> no, I mean, if we want to change the mechaninics of detecting the gadget
[17:01] <pedronis> bootloader
[17:01] <pedronis> that would be a core 22 thing
[17:01] <pedronis> at this point
[17:02] <ijohnson> ok sure I will just go do the silly grep thing
[17:02] <pedronis> ijohnson: is not a grep thing
[17:02] <pedronis> ijohnson: maybe we should have a quick chat
[17:02] <ijohnson> sure
[17:03] <ijohnson> I'm in the SU
[17:07] <zyga-mbp> hey King_InuYasha
=== ijohnson is now known as ijohnson|lunch
[17:59] <mup> PR snapd#9671 opened: release: snapd 2.48 <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9671>
[18:00] <zyga-mbp> mvo +1
[18:19] <mup> PR snapd#9671 closed: release: snapd 2.48 <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by mvo5> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9671>
[18:24] <mvo> thanks zyga-mbp
[18:24] <zyga-mbp> :-)
[18:24] <zyga-mbp> I should really thank you instead
[18:25] <mvo> cachio: snapd snap in beta for everything but arm*
[18:26] <mvo> cachio: core as well, arm will come in ~1h or so
[18:27] <cachio> mvo, nice
[18:27] <cachio> perfect, validation already started
[18:27] <mvo> cachio: \o/
[18:27] <mvo> thanks!
[18:27] <cachio> mvyaw
[18:27] <cachio> mvo, yaw
[18:39] <mup> PR snapd#9672 opened: vendor: update secboot repo to avoid including secboot.test binary <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9672>
[18:52] <mup> PR snapcraft#3382 opened: project loader: purge dead code in Config <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3382>
[19:07] <mvo> cachio: arm is now also ready in beta
[19:09] <cachio> mvo, perfect
[19:09] <cachio> thanks
[19:10] <cachio> I'll write in the docs with the results
[19:11] <mvo> ta!
=== ijohnson|lunch is now known as ijohnson
[19:13] <ijohnson> mvo: approved 9672
[19:13] <mvo> ijohnson: \o/
[19:14] <mvo> ijohnson: thanks, I closed/reopened because I forgot the "run-nested" label :/
[19:15] <ijohnson> ah right
[19:52] <pedronis> for clarity, that brings in also https://github.com/snapcore/secboot/pull/108
[19:52] <mup> PR secboot#108: Make AddEFISecureBootPolicyProfile less strict <Created by chrisccoulson> <Merged by chrisccoulson> <https://github.com/snapcore/secboot/pull/108>
[19:53] <ijohnson> yes I looked at the diff in secboot and it looked "safe" to me
[21:35] <mup> PR snapd#9662 closed: bootloader/many: return error from ConfigFile and new* functions <UC20> <⛔ Blocked> <Created by anonymouse64> <Closed by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9662>
[21:35] <mup> PR snapd#9673 opened: bootloader/many: rm ConfigFile, add Present for indicating presence of bloader <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9673>
[23:11] <amurray> jdstrand: security review done on https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9263
[23:11] <mup> PR #9263: interfaces/fpga: add fpga interface <Needs Samuele review> <Needs security review> <Squash-merge> <Created by alfonsosanchezbeato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9263>
[23:12] <jdstrand> amurray: thanks!
[23:51] <mup> PR snapd#9674 opened: bootloader/lkenv: mv v1 to separate file, include/lk/snappy_boot_v1.h: little fixups <Simple 😃> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9674>
[23:56] <mup> PR snapd#9675 opened: bootloader/lkenv: add v2 struct + support using it <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9675>