[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2020-08-18 Thread Brian Murray
The Eoan Ermine has reached end of life, so this bug will not be fixed for that release ** Changed in: libseccomp (Ubuntu Eoan) Status: Fix Committed => Won't Fix -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2020-06-09 Thread Robie Basak
FWIW, I don't see an issue leaving an FTBFS fix in block-proposed-eoan here. Removing server-next as that tag is no longer relevant to this bug. ** Tags removed: server-next -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-12-17 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
An SRU for just a FTBFS seems wrong. Even keeping it forever in block-proposed seems wrong. The fixes are known and ready for whoever does a real upload. The most likely upload is a full backport of the new version which already includes the fixes. For whoever does an upload to Eoan what you

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-12-17 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
This bug was fixed in the package libseccomp - 2.4.2-2ubuntu1 --- libseccomp (2.4.2-2ubuntu1) focal; urgency=medium * Merge with Debian unstable (LP: 1849785). Remaining changes: * Add autopkgtests * Dropped changes (in upstream now): -

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-13 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Debian accepted my MR and 2.4.2 is there. Unfortunately due to bug 1852389 I had to realize that I can't make it a sync yet. I prepared a MP for a proper merge in https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/+source/libseccomp/+git/libseccomp/+merge/375472 -- You received this bug notification

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-12 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
MP for Ubuntu: https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/+source/libseccomp/+git/libseccomp/+merge/375205 PR for Debian: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libseccomp/merge_requests/1 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-12 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
** Merge proposal linked: https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/+source/libseccomp/+git/libseccomp/+merge/375429 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-12 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Lol, after completing the python 3.8 fight I'm back at step #2 Arm fails the build still missing __NR_open 15-basic-resolver.c:58:46: error: ‘__NR_open’ undeclared (first use in this function) 58 | if (seccomp_syscall_resolve_name("open") != __NR_open) Interim state of the branch pushed to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-12 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
The new issue was discussed upstream already [1] and has a PR [2] this is targetted at v2.5, but we might pick just the fix [3] for now. [1]: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/184 [2]: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/pull/182 [3]:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-11 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
This moved in python: 3.7: libpython3.7-minimal:amd64: /usr/lib/python3.7/_sysconfigdata_m_linux_x86_64-linux-gnu.py 3.8: libpython3.8-stdlib:amd64: /usr/lib/python3.8/_sysconfigdata__linux_x86_64-linux-gnu.py Build depends is: libpython3-all-dev The file is present - Build-env:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-11 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Architectures with the fail above: all Happens after build and self tests on dh_auto_install for python 3.8 On x86 that would be: ModuleNotFoundError: No module named '_sysconfigdata_m_linux_x86_64-linux-gnu' -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-11 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
The full 2.4.2 release also fails with: Traceback (most recent call last): File "./setup.py", line 28, in from Cython.Distutils import build_ext File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/Cython/Distutils/__init__.py", line 1, in from Cython.Distutils.build_ext import build_ext File

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-11 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
2.4.2 was released by upstream now on the weekend wrapping up all the changes I experimented with. We might try packaging this instead and be better off. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-08 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Note: I ensured that the ppa uses focal-proposed, now there are even more issues. x86: checking for python extension module directory... Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 20, in File "/usr/lib/python3.8/sysconfig.py", line 512, in get_path return get_paths(scheme, vars,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-07 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Continues to FTFBS in LP infra today :-/ -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1849785 Title: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal) Status in libseccomp:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-07 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Build issue is reproducible on arm64 LP infrastructure builds. I spawned a canonistack arm64 system to check if it is reproducible there as well for some debugging how we could fix it. Interestingly, it does NOT FAIL on focal as-is when building on aarch64. But as LP builds are against

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-07 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Arm64: $ grep NR_open $(dpkg -L linux-libc-dev | xargs) 2>/dev/null /usr/include/asm-generic/unistd.h:#define __NR_openat 56 /usr/include/asm-generic/unistd.h:__SYSCALL(__NR_openat, sys_openat) /usr/include/asm-generic/unistd.h:#define __NR_open_by_handle_at 265

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-06 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Only fails on arm64 now (all others good): 15-basic-resolver.c:58:46: error: ‘__NR_open’ undeclared (first use in this function) 58 | if (seccomp_syscall_resolve_name("open") != __NR_open) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-06 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Offline build worked much better with these, but I still see some arches fail (see PPA) PPA: https://launchpad.net/~paelzer/+archive/ubuntu/bug-1849785 -libseccomp-ftbfs/+packages -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-06 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Well the answer to the new fails is that we are now "too new" in my tests I used kernel 5.3 and this is what Focal has. But the final fix used 5.4-rc levels which brought in all the time64 things. linux-libc-dev:amd64 5.3.0-21.22 5.3 already has the NR definitions like

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-06 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
I have tried quickly to just backport [1] but it still fails in a full cross arch PPA build OTOH adding those worked in the sbuild env when modifying things manually. There must be more to it. [1]: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/commit/be65b26b67099be2b2b4890d736dbd1ad15adf36 -- You

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-06 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Oh it now became a real build issue (not on unit tests) by breaking very early with things like: arch-x86_64-syscalls.c:63:27: error: ‘__PNR_clock_getres_time64’ undeclared here (not in a function) 63 | { "clock_getres_time64", __PNR_clock_getres_time64 }, -- You received this bug

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-06 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
** Merge proposal linked: https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/+source/libseccomp/+git/libseccomp/+merge/375205 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-06 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Code is on https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/tree/release-2.4 now. But an official release would need 2.4.2 to be tagged by upstream. But now fixes can be cherry-picked to fix the FTBFS in E+F ** Tags added: server-next -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-04 Thread Bug Watch Updater
** Changed in: libseccomp Status: New => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1849785 Title: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-11-02 Thread Matthias Klose
blocking the intro of python3.8 ** Tags added: rls-ff-incoming -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1849785 Title: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Bug Watch Updater
** Changed in: libseccomp Status: Unknown => New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1849785 Title: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal) Status in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
TODO: a) wait for 2.4.2 and 2.5.0 to be released and pick those b) if urgent pick and backport [1] [1]: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/pull/176/commits/e4d38dcfd44743a55728b336d008ec8e37c1b344 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Subscribing ubuntu-security to monitor this together with us as often enough they do libseccomp. IMHO We don't have any urgency to go ahead of upstream, unless a fast re-build is needed. ** Changed in: libseccomp (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => Medium ** Changed in: libseccomp (Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
And as usual once you know what you search: => https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/166 ** Bug watch added: github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues #166 https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/166 ** Also affects: libseccomp via https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/166

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Well this change made the ID 392 "known" to all architectures (in a try to sync numbers across everywhere) but it fails on those it isn't implemented (32bit, ppc, s390x + sparc which we don't have). The path registering these calls goes seccomp_rule_add -> seccomp_rule_add_array ->

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Upstream/master branch still is on 4.15-rc7 AND still uses __PNR_* for the definitions. I'll open an issue to further discuss it there. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to libseccomp in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
I think this comes from [1] which is in since 5.3. This will be generated into s390x-linux-gnu/asm/unistd_64.h and such. on x86-64 it was 220 all along, no change there. /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/asm/unistd_64.h:#define __NR_semtimedop 220

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
The difference is in the includes: Good: grep -Hrn __NR_semtimedop * asm-generic/unistd.h:539:#define __NR_semtimedop 192 asm-generic/unistd.h:540:__SC_COMP(__NR_semtimedop, sys_semtimedop, compat_sys_semtimedop) s390x-linux-gnu/bits/syscall.h:1782:#ifdef __NR_semtimedop

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
include/seccomp.h #define __PNR_semtimedop-204 #ifndef __NR_semtimedop #define __NR_semtimedop __PNR_semtimedop #endif /* __NR_semtime */ So if __NR_semtimedop is 392 then it would not set -204 and we'd get this result. Turns out that all but SCMP_SYS(semop) have changed on this

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Note: it became a PIE executable in Eoan, but haven't we had pie as default much longer? The difference is in: rc = seccomp_rule_add(ctx, SCMP_ACT_ALLOW, SCMP_SYS(semtimedop), 0); In the bad case it returns -14 Good: Breakpoint 2, seccomp_rule_add (ctx=0x2aa00049260, action=2147418112,

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
This is non stripped and only 112 lines of C ./36-sim-ipc_syscalls: ELF 64-bit MSB pie executable, IBM S/390, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld64.so.1, BuildID[sha1]=15c4946540be396acecc4273529e252eceff398f, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, with debug_info, not stripped wc -l

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Note: the debug needs nothing very special $ apt build-dep libseccomp $ pull-lp-source libseccomp $ cd libseccomp-2.4.1/ $ ./debian/rules build Is enough to trigger the failing build. To then afterwards re-iterate on the failing code run: $ cd tests $ ./36-sim-ipc_syscalls Good: some output and

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1849785] Re: FTBFS on i386/ppc64/s390x (Eoan+Focal)

2019-10-25 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
I wanted to have a good case for comparison, so I also spawned Disco and there the same passes. The subtests are reporting "SUCCESS" and overall it is skipped for non native. Test 36-sim-ipc_syscalls%%023-1 result: SUCCESS ... Test 36-sim-ipc_syscalls%%025-1 result: SKIPPED (only