On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 16:32:35 +0200
Thomas Dorner wrote:
> > The current version of the rule does things differently. Can you
> > verify whether the current version in sid works for you as well?
>
> Sorry Marc, I switched my systems to Bullseye a few months ago and no
&
> The current version of the rule does things differently. Can you
> verify whether the current version in sid works for you as well?
Sorry Marc, I switched my systems to Bullseye a few months ago and no
longer have a Sid to test with.
Best regards, Thomas
--
퓣퓱퓸퓶퓪퓼 퓓퓸퓻퓷퓮퓻
Hi Hannes!
> Please try the patch available upstream[0] and report back if it fixes
> the memory allocation errors.
Looks good:
[...]
WARNING: lgetfilecon_raw failed for /var/opt/lxc/no-network: No such file or
directory
WARNING: tried to read access ACL on /var/opt/lxc/no-network/sys but
Dear maintainers,
I narrowed it further down with some more fprintfs. The problem is not
in do_md.c but the call in hsymlnk in gen_list.c. Here the critical
part of the output:
gen_list.c: hsymlnk: '/var/opt/lxc/no-network/lib64', ''
gen_list.c: hsymlnk: len+1 == 0
Dear maintainers,
after some unsuccessful tries to monitor the failed call to realloc I
finally took the sources and added some monitoring into the aide binary
itself. (Yes, I'm writing about classic dirty printf debugging. ;-)
And today I was successful, the problem is a call to
> Well today I run it with dmalloc. I'll need some time to handle the
> 28 GB of log-file, especially as it apparently contains at least one
> large chunk of 0-bytes.
OK, so that log file looks inconspicuous. The reallocations are a few
various followed by one series of one permanently growing
Hello Hannes!
> Can you try to reproduce the failure and verify that the memory is
> actually used up by the aide process?
Well today I run it with dmalloc. I'll need some time to handle the 28
GB of log-file, especially as it apparently contains at least one large
chunk of 0-bytes.
>
Hello Hannes,
thanks for the quick response.
> How many files are in the AIDE database on a successful run? Does this
> number significantly differ when the aide check fails?
You mean the /var/lib/aide/aide.db?
# zcat /var/lib/aide/aide.db | wc
755240 21146627 442199792
The
Package: aide
Version: 0.18.2-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@th-dorner.de
Dear Maintainer (that's you Marc, isn't it ;-),
The last two daily aide runs on my desktop machine failed with an error
22. Today's log-file shows:
aide run on X.X started at 2023-04-25 06:38:52.
Hello Jens!
> I can't reproduce this issue. What steps exactly did you issue that
> failed?
Hmm, I tried it again today (after removing my hard-link), and I
couldn't reproduce it either. I did some other changes / updates in
the meantime though (esp. installing winbind and some Samba packages,
Package: winetricks
Version: 20230212-2
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@th-dorner.de
Dear Maintainer,
I have the following wine multiarch installation in Sid:
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/
> ($echo is defined by the main loop, although im sceptical it is
> actually used given echo is a builtin)
At least in the BaSH functions and aliases supersede builtins, although
I'm not sure about what the POSIX standard says about it.
--
퓣퓱퓸퓶퓪퓼 퓓퓸퓻퓷퓮퓻
Package: chkrootkit
Version: 0.57-1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@th-dorner.de
Dear Maintainer,
The regular running chkrootkit apparently creates a file '1' in the
directory /usr/lib/chkrootkit. Checking for a supposed bad redirection
in the scripts of the package of chkrootkit
Package: grub-efi-amd64
Version: 2.06-5
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@th-dorner.de
Dear Maintainer,
/var/lib/dpkg/info/grub-efi-amd64.postinst failed with:
Setting up grub-efi-amd64 (2.06-5) ...
Error: Only one of force_conffold and force_conffnew should
be set
dpkg:
Package: tiger
Version: 1:3.2.4~rc1-3.1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@th-dorner.de
Dear Maintainer,
Every run checking the listening processes produces a difference as it
uses the device IDs as socket IDs for many (not all) processes. The
problem is in the script
On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 07:33:47 -0700
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:08:32AM +0200, Thomas Dorner wrote:
> > The problem is that the current version number 4.0.0~rc3-3.1 does
> > not match the expected schema of N.N.N-N. As only the first 3
> > numbers
Package: spamassassin
Version: 4.0.0~rc3-3.1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@th-dorner.de
Dear Maintainer,
On a recently installed Sid system I tried to set-up AIDE using
aideinit. This failed with the following error messages:
ERROR: /etc/aide/aide.conf.d/21_aide_spamassassin:
Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.3.24
Followup-For: Bug #1020827
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@th-dorner.de
Dear Maintainer,
same here, I've patched it locally and just wanted to supply the patch.
Hmm, I've just noticed, there actually already seems to be one. I send
this nonetheless.
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
