li...@packages.debian.orgw
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Sorry for bothering you, but we really require your support. We have put up a
plea on our website uncensoredchina.net. It’s against the forcible extraction
of organs from innocent practitioners of Falun Gong in China. Please sign this
Control: block 943425 by 925358
I can’t debug this currently ☹ hitting qemu-user-static bugs.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
Processing control commands:
> block 943425 by 925358
Bug #943425 [libklibc-dev] klibc: [s390x] SIGSEGV in mksh testcase funsub-2
943425 was not blocked by any bugs.
943425 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 943425: 925358
--
943425:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 07:35:55AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I agree that better handling of things like debian/changelog is
> something we should focus effort on.
>
> I think we can either do something gbp dch like, possibly allowing
> commits to annotate whether and to what extent they
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.2.17-1
Severity: normal
After linux 5 I can't resume after suspend, my laptop remains is suspend mode
(the power button is slowly blinking because it's in suspend mode) and only way
to continue is to reboot. The old linux-image-4.19.0-5-amd64 works without
problems.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 925358 qemu-m68k-static: mis-emulates something to do with
> process/signal handling
Bug #925358 [libklibc-dev] klibc: [m68k] SIGKILL in mksh testcase
mtest-external and others (in qemu only?)
Changed Bug title to 'qemu-m68k-static:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 10:22 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
> > The code signing service logs every file it signs, along with a hash of
> > the detached signature, but I don't know where the logs are so I can't
> > comapre with that.
>
> I checked the audit log, but I don't
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 11:21 +0200, Tomas Janousek wrote:
> Cool, thanks for reproducing the issue! Just one question: when you say
> production key, does that mean a hardware security module like Ben mentioned,
> or can you reproduce this with a fully software implementation?
The production key
Hi Ansgar,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:59:09AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> I tried running `sign-file` manually and can reproduce the truncated
> file with Debian's production key. I also tried signing the same key
> with a test key instead of the production key: then the signature is 256
> bytes
Tomas Janousek writes:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 09:45:55AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> Tomas Janousek suggested in https://bugs.debian.org/942881#41 that the
>> file might be truncated and two bytes missing. I think that might be
>> the problem, but with three bytes missing:
>>
>>
Ben Hutchings writes:
> The code signing service logs every file it signs, along with a hash of
> the detached signature, but I don't know where the logs are so I can't
> comapre with that.
I checked the audit log, but I don't think it will help much. It
currently records that:
- 2019-10-21
affects 935945 + linux-image-5.3.0-1-amd64
affects 935945 + linux-image-amd64
Thanks!
Unfortunately, the problem still persists in linux-image-5.3.0-1-amd64
(Source-Version: 5.3.7-1) as the MOK is added to the ".platform"
keyring, which is not used for module verification (Niv Sardi's patch
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 09:45:55AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Tomas Janousek suggested in https://bugs.debian.org/942881#41 that the
> file might be truncated and two bytes missing. I think that might be
> the problem, but with three bytes missing:
>
> src:linux-signed-amd64/5.3.7+1 has for
Hi,
Ben Hutchings writes:
> You can also find the detached signatures in the source package,
> linux-signed-amd64. For this module, the signature is:
>
> debian/signatures/linux-image-5.3.0-1-amd64-unsigned/lib/modules/5.3.0-1-amd64/kernel/sound/pci/hda/snd-hda-codec-hdmi.ko.sig
Tomas Janousek
14 matches
Mail list logo
