[05:20] morning [06:02] morning [06:06] pstolowski: hey [06:12] 'morning [06:31] mardy: hey [06:31] ehh loosk like we can't really land anything now [06:38] https://status.snapcraft.io/ does not list any problems related to deltas? [06:43] nvm i see the messages on MM, maybe it's fixed now, let's see if the tests in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10483 are happy [06:50] fingers crossed [06:54] mvo: morning, and yeah [06:54] mvo: can you land https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10481 ? [06:55] mvo: also, do you think we need to involve security team in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10483 ? [07:08] mborzecki: sure [07:09] mborzecki: and good morning! [07:12] mvo: while at it: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10494 this one can be merged too as it fixes failures in nested tests [07:13] mborzecki: I really don't think we need security for 10483 - otoh it should be pretty trivial, so maybe alex can have a quick look just at this specific diff? [07:15] mborzecki: landed [07:15] mvo: ok, let me ping him [07:15] mvo: and thank you [07:15] mborzecki: thank *you* :) [07:16] hey mvo [07:18] meh, deltas are still unhappy [07:18] i wonder if some need to be regenerated or something [07:24] hey pstolowski [07:24] mborzecki: that is a bit disappointing [07:25] mborzecki: what is the latest run that failed? we might want to poke the store again [07:25] mvo: pinged you in store's mm channel [07:26] mvo: this is the latest run that failed: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10483/checks?check_run_id=2995822939 [07:28] mborzecki: ta [07:28] mborzecki: I wonder if we should disable the test to unblock, it's very tedious to review the failure logs [07:46] * pstolowski physio [07:54] mborzecki: I pushed a PR to disable the delta tests for now [07:56] mborzecki: hi, https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10469 needs a master merge now? [08:00] mvo: thanks [08:00] pedronis: yes [08:30] should an ordinarey user be able to write into $SNAP_DATA? The folder is owned by root [08:31] ah, that's for system data [08:33] good morning [08:33] * zyga starts late after late evening work [08:39] mmm... this is "funny": the mount operation succeeds, yet the mountpoint appears to be empty and /proc/mounts does not list it. I suspect it's a namespacing issue... [08:50] mardy, as i asked on mattermost already, are you sure you want to actually do that, given the content of $SNAP_DATA gets forward copied during snap updates you'd have to deal with skipping the mounted bits, moving the mountpoint back and forth with snap revert/refresh etc etc [08:51] re [08:51] mardy, $SNAP_COMMON does not get copied or moved ... i'd restrict the mounting to this dir only [08:54] ogra`: I'm just writing a test. We are developing a mount-control interface, and I have a simple snap to test it: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10473/files [08:56] so, after installing the snap and connecting the plug, I run: "sudo test-snapd-mount-control.mntctl -o bind,ro /usr/share/fonts /var/snap/test-snapd-mount-control/current/fonts" [08:56] the mount apparently succeeds, but /var/snap/test-snapd-mount-control/current/fonts stays empty [08:57] I've now verified that the /var/snap/test-snapd-mount-control/current/fonts is empty even for the process running in the snap itself, so it would seem it's not even a namespacing issue [09:02] mardy, yeah, i know about the interface (i drive the customer that asked for it), i'm just thinking the restricting your whereRegexp() to /media and $SNAP_COMMON makes handling updates eaiser since a snap refresh will copy the content of the mountpoint to the dir that becomes the new current/ symlink after refresh [09:03] unless you add any code to special case mounted stuff in $SNAP_DATA [09:04] and additionally the mount needs to move along with the symlink going forward/backward on snap revert and refresh [10:13] can someone review #10495 please? this should unblock the tests until the store is fixed [10:22] +1 [10:22] ta [10:25] pedronis: i've updated https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10493 too now [10:48] pedronis: re #7700 and the comment about waiting for runinhibit in snapRunHook, I think we shouldn't do this for any hooks? [10:49] pstolowski: yea, think so [10:49] mborzecki: thx [10:51] pedronis: btw do you have a moment before standup to chat about --proceed outside of hook? [10:52] pstolowski: yes, please schedule something [10:54] pedronis: done === alan_g_ is now known as alan_g [11:44] pedronis: fun: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10493#issuecomment-874689293 afaict our grub-recovery.cfg doesn't like 1234-2 labels [11:44] mborzecki: well, as we know it's not clear we fully like our grub-recovery.cfg [11:44] mborzecki: we discussed whether there are things we should change/improve with it [11:46] pedronis: yeah, i can look into updating that to be more relaxed, there's a still a question of rolling out an update if we do it [11:46] yea [11:48] pedronis: i guess for now i can leave the boot config edition unchanged like we did for the run one [11:48] mborzecki: yes [11:48] mborzecki: fwiw we do a regexp in seed/internal about what are valid labels [11:48] *do have [11:49] oh right, i can start with that [11:58] pedronis: i don't think https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10476 needs your review, does it? i would like to land it soon once green [11:59] pstolowski: not particurly, no, unless you think it does, but sounds not [12:03] pedronis: ok, thanks [12:17] mborzecki: I re-reviewed https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10469 [12:18] pedronis: thanks [12:18] pedronis: i think i got grub under control now, still waiting for spread test to finish, but it seems to work in a vm [12:19] good [12:30] can anyone think of some reason why mount(2) would succeed (returns 0, and no apparmor denials are seen) yet nothing really happens (the mount point stays empty)? [14:01] mvo: so, the branch is https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10473 [14:02] I just build it, run the snapd from my branch, call "snap pack" on the test directory, then install the snap with --dangerous, connect its plug, and then run "sudo test-snapd-mount-control.mntctl -o bind /usr/share/fonts /var/snap/test-snapd-mount-control/common/fonts" [14:22] pedronis: i've pushed an update to https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10469 i think i understood what you wanted to be changed in the tests, but let's see [14:23] fwiw, with changed recovery grub config the remodel spread test is passing again [14:25] mborzecki: thx [14:34] mborzecki: re-reviewed [14:36] mborzecki: thx [14:36] ijohnson[m]: I tried to answer the question in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10437 , sorry I should have been explicit in my previous comment [14:36] pedronis: thanks for that [14:37] mvo: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10437 needs your re-review [14:41] pedronis: sure, looking [14:43] mvo: nevermind my mount issue: if the mount point is under /media/**, it works. For some reason using $SNAP_COMMON doesn't, but I'll investigate [14:44] mmm... when accessing /var from inside a snap, is that the same /var as the system's one, or does it get somehow remapped? [14:45] mardy: ah are you entering into the mount namespace of the snap to check that the mount exists ? [14:45] mardy: snap mount namespaces are setup such that mounts made inside them do not propagate back to the host's mount namespace, with the exception of /media/ I think [14:46] mardy: have you been introduced to the `/run/snapd/ns` directory at all? [14:47] mvo: nah, actually /media/** does not work either, I made a mistake before :-( [14:48] ijohnson[m]: no, but if I list the files from the same process that does the mount(), I guess I should be already inside the correct namespace? [14:50] mardy: hmm you mean like /proc//mountinfo ? yeah that should show the mounts from that namespace [14:53] ijohnson[m]: no, I'm not opening mountinfo, I'm just calling (in python) os.listfiles() on the mount point, and it's empty [14:53] but that's from the same process who called mount(), so it should see the files... [14:54] mardy: I assume both those mount process and the python program are running inside the snap confinement ? [14:55] ijohnson[m]: yes, it's the same process: I'm not invoking the mount(8) binary, but directly doing mount(2) from python: https://github.com/mardy/snapd/blob/mount-control/tests/lib/snaps/test-snapd-mount-control/bin/mntctl#L115-L124 [14:55] (using ctypes) [14:56] if I call the python script directly, without passing via snapd, it works [14:56] mardy: silly question but did you try adding a sleep after performing the mount() ? [14:56] ijohnson[m]: nope, let me try... [14:57] nope, doesn't help (3 seconds) [14:57] 😕 [14:58] mardy: how can I reproduce this? just build that branch of snapd `mount-control` and then install the `test-snapd-mount-control` snap ? [14:58] ijohnson[m]: and connect the plug [14:59] ijohnson[m]: then run sudo test-snapd-mount-control.mntctl -o bind /usr/share/fonts /var/snap/test-snapd-mount-control/common/fonts [15:00] ijohnson[m]: you can also add "-c 'ls -l /var/snap/test-snapd-mount-control/common/fonts'" to have it run an "ls" command [15:00] mardy: ack thanks, I'm trying to wrap some other things up this morning but I will take a look in my PM [15:00] ijohnson[m]: much appreciated, thanks! [15:01] np [15:44] pedronis: mvo I think I figured out why my fix for #10165 didn't work, I only did the fix for one of the two tests, so now I pushed up that same fix for the second test, do you think the PR needs to be re-reviewed all over again at this point? [15:44] I'm inclined to say that yes, any previous +1's should be re-done [15:46] ijohnson[m]: one re-review is probably enough [15:46] ok [15:47] mvo: I did a pass https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10264, some comments there, let me know if I'm confused [15:50] pedronis: looking, but it's probably me being confused [15:59] cachio: maybe you could take a look at https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10479 ? it's a followup to the spread test you reviewed yesterday [16:02] pstolowski, sure [16:05] ty [16:28] pedronis: thanks so much for the review, excellent points. I addressed everyting except for the optimization to only call the virtual configs when there is an overlap, need to have dinner first so either later tonight or tomorrow but I pushed the rest [16:28] pedronis: could even be a followup (maybe?) [17:48] 10496 needs a review, looks like deltas are happy again [17:48] cachio: can you take another look at https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10165 today? thank you [17:49] ijohnson[m], sure [17:49] mvo: sure I will take a look at that one when I'm back from lunch [17:49] thanks cachio [17:50] ijohnson[m]: no rush, it's pretty trivial [17:51] it looks like my virtual config stuff is finally making some good progress *fingers-crossed* === not_phunyguy is now known as phunyguy [18:50] ijohnson[m], +1, left few comments inline [19:16] Thanks cachio [19:16] yaw === mwhudson_ is now known as mwhudson [20:46] * cachio afk