Thank you for the detailed explanation Fabio, the impact of the bug is now much better understood. Can I ask for an update of the Impact field in the SRU description above? In a summary, but also getting into a bit more details about how this differs from focal+ etc.
One thing I worry about in this SRU is basically what has been mentioned by Ben Hutchings as a follow up to the patch forwarded upstream: https://lists.zytor.com/archives/klibc/2021-December/004635.html I worry that since this issue in ipconfig has been around for *so long* that people could have actually started depending on the behavior being as-is. I don't think klibc's ipconfig is too widely used (as klibc-utils only has like 2 reverse-dependencies), but it's still something to consider. I think I'm not generally against this SRU. Similar to Robie I would like some regression potential analysis done and included in the [Where problems could occur] section - one of them being what I mentioned above. Can you think of any other issues this change could cause? In integration or in different parts of the code? Can we mitigate this somehow by performing some additional testing? If you could modify the two sections of the SRU description, I'd be ready to accept this into bionic-proposed. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1947099 Title: ipconfig does not honour user-requested timeouts in some cases To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/klibc/+bug/1947099/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
