[01:58] <mup> PR snapd#9872 opened: overlord/servicestate: expose dbus activators of a service <Created by jhenstridge> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9872>
[06:59] <mborzecki> morning
[07:27] <mborzecki> mvo: hey
[07:29] <mvo> good morning mborzecki !
[07:30] <mborzecki> school run
[07:34] <mup> PR snapd#9869 closed: cmd: make string/error code more robust against errno leaking (2.49) <Created by mvo5> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9869>
[07:39] <mup> PR snapd#9861 closed: gadget: run resolveContentPaths() when laying out a volume <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <Closed by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9861>
[07:39] <mup> PR snapd#9873 opened: gadget: add new ResolvedContent and populate from LayoutVolume() <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9873>
[07:57] <mborzecki> re
[08:00] <mborzecki> mvo: something is off in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9870
[08:00] <mup> PR #9870: vendor: update go-tpm2/secboot to latest version <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9870>
[08:02] <mvo> mborzecki: yeah, it's strange, no idea yet (but haven't digged, jumped into dtb)
[08:02] <mborzecki> mvo: i can take a look once i get my morning coffee
[08:08] <mborzecki> yeah, unit tests don't build even
[08:10] <pstolowski> morning
[08:19] <mborzecki> mvo: looks like a problem could be in the secboot package itself: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/XC86YRCRFD/
[08:19] <mborzecki> pstolowski: hey
[08:26] <mvo> mborzecki: makes sense, seems like chris needs to update some code?
[08:26] <mvo> good morning pstolowski
[08:33] <mborzecki> mvo: yes, do you recall what is the fix in go-tpm2 we want to pull in?
[08:36] <mvo> mborzecki: iirc there was a fix to be less strict in the tpm2 checks or differently strict that fixes uc20 install on davids test PC
[08:37] <mborzecki> hmm maybe there's a PR still up
[08:38] <mborzecki> mvo: this PR most likely: https://github.com/snapcore/secboot/pull/108
[08:38] <mup> PR secboot#108: Make AddEFISecureBootPolicyProfile less strict <Created by chrisccoulson> <Merged by chrisccoulson> <https://github.com/snapcore/secboot/pull/108>
[08:39] <mvo> mborzecki: yeah, that's what I remember. maybe we just wait for chris to come online?
[08:43] <mborzecki> mvo: ok, i think i've found a set of revisions that works
[08:44] <mvo> mborzecki: hm, ok
[08:44] <mborzecki> mvo: i'll push it to your branch and leave links to the relevant commits
[08:44] <mup> PR snapd#9874 opened: gadget: remove resolvedSource from VolumeContent <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9874>
[08:50] <mborzecki> mvo: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9870#issuecomment-768898417
[08:50] <mup> PR #9870: vendor: update go-tpm2/secboot to latest version <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9870>
[10:05] <mup> PR snapd#9875 opened: gadget: use ResolvedSource in MountedFilesystemWriter <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9875>
[10:57] <mborzecki> mvo: it'd be nice to include https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9744 in 2.49 if we can get security team to look at it (cc amurray), wdyt?
[10:57] <mup> PR #9744: OpenGL interface: Support more Tegra libs <Needs security review> <Squash-merge> <Created by om26er> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9744>
[10:57] <mborzecki> (added a milestone)
[10:58] <mvo> mborzecki: +1
[10:59] <mvo> mborzecki: I gess we could try to ping alex directly in the PR
[11:22] <mborzecki> mvo: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9865 can be merged and cherry picked, the failure on 16.04-32 is unrelated
[11:22] <mup> PR #9865: interfaces/browser-support: allow sched_setaffinity with browser-sandbox: true <Bug> <Simple 😃> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9865>
[11:51] <mvo> mborzecki: cool, will do
[11:52] <mvo> mborzecki: merged and cherry-picked
[11:52] <mborzecki> mvo: thank you!
[11:55] <mup> PR snapd#9865 closed: interfaces/browser-support: allow sched_setaffinity with browser-sandbox: true <Bug> <Simple 😃> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9865>
[11:57] <mborzecki> meh, it's snowing again
[13:05] <oxek> how can I remove all snapshots? `snap forget *` does not work.
[13:11] <mup> PR snapcraft#3431 closed: godeps spread test: use latest/stable go snap <Created by cjp256> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3431>
[13:21] <mborzecki> oxek: little for loop over `snap saved | awk {..}` output?
[13:56] <mup> PR snapcraft#3432 closed: spread tests: remove legacy plugin tests <Created by cjp256> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3432>
[15:13] <mborzecki> errands time
[15:46] <mup> PR snapd#9855 closed: [RFC] gadget: enable sector-sizes in gadget.yaml; refactor SectorSize handling <UC20> <⛔ Blocked> <Created by anonymouse64> <Closed by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9855>
[15:51] <mup> PR snapd#9876 opened: Add vcu iface <Created by alfonsosanchezbeato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9876>
[15:54] <mvo> cachio: I released core 2.49~rc1 to beta now too, so this should also be ready for validation
[17:16] <pedronis> mvo: any reason not to merge #9856? I see there's discussion about the signature but doesn't seem a blocker and could be changed later
[17:16] <mup> PR #9856: gadget,overlord: pass kernelRoot to install.Run() <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9856>
[17:16] <ijohnson> yeah the signature I don't think is a blocker on that pr
[17:21] <mvo> pedronis: no reason, I just did not see the second +1 yet, had a very busy day
[17:22]  * cachio lunch
[17:22] <bandali> hi, is the network-manager interface pretty much the only way for a snap to receive network manager events like connectivity change?
[17:28] <ijohnson> bandali: there's both network-manager plug and the network-manager-observe plug, I'm not sure if there's a specific access you are looking for
[17:31] <bandali> ijohnson, i see. i'm not entirely sure myself, but i'm told we need to be able to detect and act upon wifi/ethernet/vpn changes
[17:52] <ijohnson> bandali: well I would try first with network-manager-observe and see if that works for your snap
[18:07] <bandali> right; i'll try with that (again); but i seem to recall it not being enough
[19:27] <cachio> ijohnson|lunch, hi
[19:27] <cachio> I see the unit tests run much slower in xenial than in bionic
[19:27] <cachio> do you see any contrain to run those tests in bionic?
[19:32] <zyga> hey guys
[19:32] <zyga> what a long day
[19:32] <zyga> how are things?
[19:33] <cachio> zyga, hey
[19:33] <zyga> hey :-)
[19:33] <cachio> almost on vacations :)
[19:33] <cachio> still need to work on the log analyzer
[19:33] <cachio> thanks for the review but I was fixing other stuff and couldnt address that yet
[19:35] <zyga> oh, nice, what are you going to do on holidays?
[19:36] <zyga> that's fine, I'm stretched think anyway, I cannot review things quickly myself
[19:36] <zyga> feel free to ping me as a reminder
[19:37] <mup> PR snapd#9877 opened: tests: run unit tests in Focal instead of Xenial <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9877>
[19:38] <zyga> cachio do you know why there's such a big difference in speed?
[19:39] <zyga> but I'm not sure this is a good idea
[19:39] <zyga> I'll comment on the PR
[19:40] <zyga> done
[20:00] <zyga> back
[20:08] <ijohnson> hey cachio
[20:09] <ijohnson> cachio: I think it's probably fine to run the unit tests in focal instead of xenial, if it's faster seems fine to me
[20:09] <zyga> hey ijohnson
[20:10] <ijohnson> hey zyga
[20:12] <ijohnson> zyga: I commented on that pr, I disagree with your request for changes, I think the pr is fine
[20:13] <zyga> ijohnson hmm
[20:14] <zyga> ijohnson do I understand incorrectly that the snapd build is now happening on focal?
[20:14] <ijohnson> zyga: the github action we use to build the snap uses LXD to build the snap
[20:14] <zyga> ohhh
[20:14] <zyga> I missed that
[20:14] <zyga> I will revise my review
[20:14] <ijohnson> thanks!
[20:14] <zyga> thank you for pointing that out
[20:15] <zyga> done
[20:20] <cachio> zyga, no idea
[20:21] <cachio> but in github machines the time is similar
[20:21] <cachio> the difference is in gce
[20:23] <cachio> still trying to see if there is any way to run this checks in parallel at least because is taking 15/6 minutes
[20:52] <ijohnson> cachio: this morning (or maybe yesterday I don't remember) you mentioned something about uc20-recovery task failing now? it should be passing now everywhere the kernel has been updated with everything for a while now
[21:32] <mup> PR snapd#9878 opened: tests/core/uc20-recovery: move recover mode helpers to generic testslib script <Simple 😃> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9878>
[22:05] <cachio> ijohnson, hi, sorry for the delay
[22:05] <ijohnson> no worries
[22:05] <cachio> uc20 recovery test is failing
[22:06] <cachio> it failed on pi3 pi4 and amd64
[22:06] <cachio> let me check the errors
[22:08] <cachio> ijohnson, this is pi3 https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/9CwtrYwWrq/
[22:08] <cachio> I remember the problem was related to an ip change
[22:08] <cachio> right?
[22:09] <ijohnson> cachio: let me have a look
[22:09] <ijohnson> cachio: also I just noticed that our github actions spread runners are almost out of space in canonistack can you take a look before you eod ? https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/9g6RfyFMz8/
[22:10] <ijohnson> cachio: as to those logs, it could be related to a different pr, which kernel + snapd snaps are you trying with
[22:10] <cachio> ijohnson, yes, I need to add a new script to clean up the jobs
[22:11] <ijohnson> cachio: ack
[22:11] <cachio> because the runner logs are huge
[22:12] <cachio> ijohnson, this is amd64 https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/K6FQzvy62Y/
[22:12] <cachio> pretty the same
[22:13] <ijohnson> cachio: hmm yeah it does appear to be the same, when this happens can you check the IP address of the external device manually? if it is different then we have a bug/regression somehow
[22:13] <ijohnson> cachio: I don't have time this afternoon, but I can try to run the external tests tomorrow to see if I can reproduce
[22:13] <cachio> for that I need to manually reserve the device and run the test
[22:13] <cachio> I can do it
[22:53] <mup> PR snapd#9879 opened: osutil/many: make all test pkgs osutil_test instead of "osutil" <Cleanup :broom:> <Simple 😃> <Test Robustness> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9879>
[23:03] <mup> PR snapd#9880 opened: tests/lib/fakestore: support repair assertions too  <Simple 😃> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9880>