[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
Override component to main libtraceevent 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble: universe/misc -> main libtraceevent-dev 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble amd64: universe/libdevel/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-dev 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble arm64: universe/libdevel/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-dev 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble armhf: universe/libdevel/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-dev 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble ppc64el: universe/libdevel/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-dev 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble riscv64: universe/libdevel/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-dev 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble s390x: universe/libdevel/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-doc 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble amd64: universe/doc/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-doc 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble arm64: universe/doc/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-doc 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble armhf: universe/doc/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-doc 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble i386: universe/doc/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-doc 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble ppc64el: universe/doc/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-doc 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble riscv64: universe/doc/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent-doc 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble s390x: universe/doc/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble amd64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble arm64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble armhf: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble ppc64el: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble riscv64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble s390x: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1-plugin 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble amd64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1-plugin 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble arm64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1-plugin 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble armhf: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1-plugin 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble ppc64el: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1-plugin 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble riscv64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main libtraceevent1-plugin 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu2 in noble s390x: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main Override [y|N]? y 26 publications overridden. ** Changed in: libtraceevent (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
Hey everyone and Paul. First, sorry for the delayed answered (I was thinking you would get me reassign and for some reason, I missed subscribing to the bug) > But I do not really understand the harm of having these entries kept for documentation, except this could pile up and become a mess at some point. Do we have a policy regarding the removal of these entries (count of version, age)? There is no strict policy, I understand the historical part of having it for documenting. I suggest to keep it for some release, but if this is doable, cleanup after a while. It’s not something we want to keep hanging around forever. I see that you want to remove them in a future upload, good! All the required TODOs are now fullfilled, thanks for working on those! I’m thus happy to MIR ack this package now! ** Changed in: libtraceevent (Ubuntu) Status: In Progress => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
We agreed that the "#MISSING: " lines will be downgraded to a Recommended MIR TODO. Do you want those #MISSING: symbols dropped? IMO it should be fine as-is. Upstream is aware and want's to drop it anyway #MISSING is fine unless it keeps adding more and more and more of them So this should be good to go! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
I just subscribed the ~foundations-bugs team. Security review looking good (comment #20). I can now see proper autopkgtests and "dh_auto_test" during build. The "#MISSING: " lines in libtraceevent1.symbols have been explained in comment #3 & #4 after discussions with the upstream/Debian maintainer. So it looks like all MIR requirements from comment #2 are addressed. LGTM. @didrocks WDYT? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
I uploaded the patch in bug 2055258 for Paul, which addresses the TODOs about build time tests and autopkgtest. ** Changed in: libtraceevent (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
I reviewed libtraceevent 1:1.8.2-1 as checked into noble. This shouldn't be considered a full audit but rather a quick gauge of maintainability. > libtraceevent - Linux kernel trace event library - CVE History: - none - Build-Depends? - nothing concerning - most dependencies are for building documentation - pre/post inst/rm scripts? - none - init scripts? - none - systemd units? - none - dbus services? - none - setuid binaries? - none - binaries in PATH? - none - sudo fragments? - none - polkit files? - none - udev rules? - none - cron jobs? - none - unit tests / autopkgtests? - in progress by owning team - Build logs: - missing MAN pages - documentation warnings make build logs noisy - W: libtraceevent source: build-depends-on-obsolete-package Build-Depends: pkg-config => pkgconf - Processes spawned? - ./src/parse-filter.c runs regexec - this is a library, secure implementation depends on downstream projects - Memory management? - heavy use - care seems to be taken - as a root process, bugs are unlikely to cause vulnerabilities - this is a library, secure implementation depends on downstream projects - File IO? - load_plugin() from ./src/event-plugin.c use dlopen - security depends on how downstream projects load plugins - assume plugins are root - Logging? - contains error handling messages - mostly in ./src/parse-filter.c - Environment variable usage? - TRACEEVENT_PLUGIN_DIR - HOME - Use of privileged functions? - none - Use of cryptography / random number sources etc? - none - Use of temp files? - none - Use of networking? - minimal use in ./src/event-parse.c - Use of WebKit? - none - Use of PolicyKit? - none - Any significant cppcheck and Coverityresults? - false positives - these looked relevant at first glance, but not after analysis - Any significant shellcheck results? - none, all reports are for manpages/tests/building - Any significant bandit results? - none Security team ACK for promoting libtraceevent to main. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
> FWIW, the convention for ppa uploads is to append ~ppaX to the new version number. Oh my bad, I forgot about that! > This was causing me a lot of confusion Sorry about that, it was not clearly mentioned. > If you want to keep using LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC for this purpose, I did this because I thought it would prevent from making too much changes in the makefile and would be maintainable. I will do the fixes you suggested. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
FTR: There was an older MIR discussion around libtraceevent in bug #2051916 (concerns were similar). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
> Yes, because for now I am submitting the patch I am generating from the build I submit to my PPA to test. FWIW, the convention for ppa uploads is to append ~ppaX to the new version number. > Yes, this is done intentionally because AFAIU the static lib is not supposed to be used by consumers of libtraceevent Ah, okay. This was causing me a lot of confusion, since you are kind of mis-using the LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC variable. The point remains either way that you should simply use -ltraceevent (this is what any real consumer will do) instead of grepping `dpkg -L`. If you want to keep using LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC for this purpose, please add a comment explaining that we are knowingly hijacking this variable to instead link against the shared library. Otherwise, it will continue to be confusing. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
> The version number for the package also looks wrong still. Yes, because for now I am submitting the patch I am generating from the build I submit to my PPA to test. I will fix this once everything is done. > Are you intentionally populating LIBRARY_STATIC with a path to a *shared* library? Yes, this is done intentionally because AFAIU the static lib is not supposed to be used by consumers of libtraceevent (and could even not be included in the package). So I thought it best to build the test binary using the installed shared library. But I may totally be wrong on that so if using the static one is fine I can fix it! > I would write your changelog entry along the lines of Yes, good point, it looks much better! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
Passing `-l:libtraceevent.a` *will* use the installed library, unless it's installed in some odd location outside of LIBRARY_PATH, which does not appear to be the case. This is doing the same thing as any other `-l` usage, but specifies that we specifically want the static version of this library. Your patch still searches for the shared object and assigns that to LIBRARY_STATIC. This looks wrong. Are you intentionally populating LIBRARY_STATIC with a path to a *shared* library? The version number for the package also looks wrong still. Finally, as a note of organization, since you are making several changes related to one bug, I would write your changelog entry along the lines of: * (LP: #2055258) - Build but also run the test suite when building the pkg. - Run unit test as autopkgtest - Fix test running on big endian arch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
Is that what you had in mind? Because it looks like this is working as I expected See https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-noble-upils-test- ppa/noble/amd64/libt/libtraceevent/20240311_132302_36e50@/log.gz Did I miss something? ** Patch added: "libtraceevent_1.8.2-1ubuntu11.diff" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+attachment/5754832/+files/libtraceevent_1.8.2-1ubuntu11.diff -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
Thanks for the review enr0n! I like your solution of setting LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC in debian/tests/utest to have minimal changes in the Makefile. > Shouldn't this be libtraceevent.a? Further, wouldn't it be better to make > this `LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC = -l:libtraceevent.a`? In its review didrocks specifically asked to run the tests with the installed library. That is why I am looking for its path and using it to replace LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC when building the test binary. Does it make sense? I am missing something? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
A few comments after a first look at the patch: 1. You should include bug numbers in the changelog, and in the relevant patch files (using the Bug-Ubuntu dep3 field). 2. The version string is incorrect. The previous upload is 1:1.8.2-1, so this should be 1:1.8.2-1ubuntu1. It's also generally good to set the release field instead of leaving UNRELEASED, even though a sponsor could easily change this. 3. On this Makefile diff: +--- a/Makefile b/Makefile +@@ -257,6 +257,10 @@ + test: force $(LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC) + $(Q)$(call descend,$(UTEST_DIR),test) + ++test-installed: LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC := $(shell dpkg -L libtraceevent-dev | grep libtraceevent.so) Shouldn't this be libtraceevent.a? Further, wouldn't it be better to make this `LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC = -l:libtraceevent.a`? ++test-installed: force ++ $(Q)$(call descend,$(UTEST_DIR),test) ++ + VIM_TAGS = $(obj)/tags + EMACS_TAGS = $(obj)/TAGS + I think it would also be simpler to make this patch do: diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 41ad866..8ffc529 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ EXTRAVERSION= $(EP_EXTRAVERSION) OBJ= $@ N = -LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC = $(bdir)/libtraceevent.a +LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC ?= $(bdir)/libtraceevent.a LIBTRACEEVENT_SHARED = $(bdir)/libtraceevent.so.$(EVENT_PARSE_VERSION) EP_HEADERS_DIR = $(src)/include/traceevent and then in debian/tests/utest, you can just call LIBTRACEEVENT_STATIC='-l:libtraceevent.a'. This Makefile patch has the advantage of probably being very upstream-able too. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
I now have a patch adding (and fixing) tests running at build and in autopkgtest. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2055258/comments/11 I am now waiting for sponsorship on this upload. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
** Tags added: sec-3931 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
I have opened a dedicated bug to work on the patch as discussed with slyon. See LP: #2055258 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
Updated patch. The test binary will now return 1 if at least one test failed. I will run autopkgtest when the pkg is published, and I expect it will fail (and correctly report this failure) for s390x. We should then decide if this failure is blocking the MIR process or not. ** Patch added: "libtraceevent_1.8.2-1ubuntu5.diff" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+attachment/5749776/+files/libtraceevent_1.8.2-1ubuntu5.diff -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2051916] Re: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency
Here is a patch to run utest at build time and build+run it with the installed lib in autopkgtest. I will update with the log of a successful autopkgtest run once this is done. ** Patch added: "libtraceevent_1.8.2-1ubuntu3.diff" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+attachment/5749491/+files/libtraceevent_1.8.2-1ubuntu3.diff -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 Title: [MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libtraceevent/+bug/2051916/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
