May 2020 - openSUSE Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 1135082] zypper man page formatting broken
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135082 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135082#c11 Stephan Kulow <coolo(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |coolo(a)suse.com Assignee|coolo(a)suse.com |zypp-maintainers(a)suse.de --- Comment #11 from Stephan Kulow <coolo(a)suse.com> --- Tumbleweed and 15SP2 got asciidoc using python3 now. So please switch back -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1171027] New: No network (ethernet) with latest kernel
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1171027 Bug ID: 1171027 Summary: No network (ethernet) with latest kernel Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Distribution Version: Leap 15.1 Hardware: x86-64 OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Major Priority: P5 - None Component: Kernel Assignee: kernel-maintainers(a)forge.provo.novell.com Reporter: nwr10cst-oslnx(a)yahoo.com QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 Build Identifier: I updated Leap 15.2. On reboot, I do not have a network. (WiFi does still work). These seem to be the relevant lines from "dmesg": [ 36.017272] libphy: r8169: probed [ 36.017278] r8169 0000:05:00.0: realtek.ko not loaded, maybe it needs to be added to initramfs? I'll note that I have tried adding to initramfs, and that does not help at all. I'll note that this is with kernel 5.3.18-lp152.11-default The network is fine if I boot to kernel 5.3.18-lp152.10-default Reproducible: Always -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 4

[Bug 1124941] VUL-1: CVE-2019-7659: gsoap: denial of service or possibly unspecified other impact if a server application is built with the -DWITH_COOKIES flag
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124941 Alexandros Toptsoglou <atoptsoglou(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|security-team(a)suse.de |jengelh(a)inai.de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1169494] AUDIT-0: oddjob: review D-Bus and PAM
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169494 Matthias Gerstner <matthias.gerstner(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |IN_PROGRESS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1169229] Qualcomm Atheros QCA6174 not working well on newest Tumbleweed snapshots.
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169229 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169229#c23 --- Comment #23 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai(a)suse.com> --- At this point, the best we can do is to report to upstream, I'm afraid. Such a problem could be a race between WiFi and BT firmware uploading, but it's a hardware-specific problem in anyways... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1171061] New: Update paraview to version 5.6.2
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1171061 Bug ID: 1171061 Summary: Update paraview to version 5.6.2 Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Distribution Version: Leap 15.1 Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Other Assignee: screening-team-bugs(a)suse.de Reporter: badshah400(a)gmail.com QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- I'd like to push an update for paraview on openSUSE:Leap:15.1 to the last upstream patch version in the series version 5.6.3. No new features are introduced, but version 5.6.1 (which is included as part of this update) has quite a number of important bug fixes: https://blog.kitware.com/paraview-5-6-1-release-notes/ Maintenance, Please advise whether I can go ahead. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1170914] New: KDE Plasma widgets are not installed.
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1170914 Bug ID: 1170914 Summary: KDE Plasma widgets are not installed. Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: x86-64 OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: KDE Workspace (Plasma) Assignee: opensuse-kde-bugs(a)opensuse.org Reporter: dariy.skoba45(a)gmail.com QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- When I try to install the same widget online for the second user, I get the error "Failed to install <<widget_name>>: file not found". If I try to install a widget that was previously not installed in the first user, it installs without problems. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1168027] New: Dolphin crashes when sending files to E-Mail (KMail) a second time
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1168027 Bug ID: 1168027 Summary: Dolphin crashes when sending files to E-Mail (KMail) a second time Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: x86-64 OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Major Priority: P5 - None Component: KDE Applications Assignee: opensuse-kde-bugs(a)opensuse.org Reporter: alyana2714(a)gmail.com QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- Since the latest Tumbleweed updates (approx. March 25th 2020), Dolphin crashes when sending file(s) to be sent via KMail more than one time without closing Dolphin. It all works well for the first time. Right click, share, send to email. KMail opens, file(s) sent successfully. When doing this again without having closed Dolphin in the meantime, Dolphin crashes and needs to be restarted. Then it works again, one time. The second time it crashes again, needs restart. And so on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 1170443] su seems to not work any more
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170443 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170443#c20 --- Comment #20 from Josef Möllers <josef.moellers(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to Rainer Klier from comment #19) > (In reply to Josef Möllers from comment #18) > > (In reply to Rainer Klier from comment #17) > > > (In reply to Josef Möllers from comment #16) > > > > (In reply to Rainer Klier from comment #13) > > > > > (In reply to Stanislav Brabec from comment #12) > > > > > > Does your su binary have SUID flag? > > > > > > > > > Can you please try to change that to > > > > -rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 51320 15. Apr 20:10 /usr/bin/su > > > > eg by "chmod 4755 /usr/bin/su" and try to reproduce the error? > > > > > > it works now! :-D > > and is the "s" bit the correct way, how it should be? Sorry if I state the obvious: usually a program runs with the privileges of the user who executes it. So eg you won't be able to show the /etc/shadow file by using "cat /etc/shadow" because an unprivileged user has no rights to open and read that file. But as sometimes a non-privileged user needs to do something that requires higher privileges, the SETUID bit changes the privileges to the OWNER OF THE FILE, "root" in the case of "su". Then, "su" can open "/etc/shadow" (using the PAM library) and do what it needs to do. These programs are highly sensitive and are scrutinized carefully by multiple people. The "x" in the 4th position usually indicates execute permission for the owner of the file (int the 7th position of users in the same group and in the 11th position for everyone else). If the SETUID (SET User ID) bit is set, it is shown in this position as "S" if the execute bit is NOT set and as "s" if the execute bit is also set, so in this case, as the "su" program must be executable, it should show as "s". (The SETGID (SET Group ID) bit is likewise shown in the 7th position, another bit, the "RESTRICTED DELETION FLAG OR STICKY BIT" is shown as T/t in the 11th position. > > > so, could it be, that an update on 2020-04-24 changed the SUID flag on the > > > su command? > > > > This is highly unlikely: > > 1) It would need to be changed explicitly in the package's build > > infrastructure > > 2) As packages are tested before being released, this would definitely have > > shown up in these tests. > > so, the one question remains open: > WHY it was suddenly changed? > > i didn't do it. Unless Stanislav has an explanation, I venture to say: this kind of things happens ... I'm in this business for ~40 years and I claim that it has happened to me one time or another. I don't want to finger-point in any way. As Linux tools are very quiet if they think they did The Right Thing, one often doesn't see what has really happened. Also, some of these bits are reset if you fiddle around with these files in one way or another, so it may have happened when you did something else. > > So, in a nutshell: I'm (really!) afraid we won't know what the root cause > > for this problem is. > > yes, that is the remaining problem.... As I wrote: "I'm (really!) afraid" as, believe me, this kind of solution is highly unsatisfactory: not being able to get to the root cause leaves an eary feeling that something MAY be wrong. > > So I'm closing this bug as FIXED. If you feel this is incorrect, please > > re-open. > > ok, if the "s" bit is the correct solution, it is ok for me. > if this problem returns, i know, where to look and check. > and if it returns, i will reopen this ticket. Yes. That's how it should be done. > thank you very much. That's also what we're here for! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1160337] VUL-0: CVE-2020-6377: chromium: multiple security issues fixed in 79.0.3945.117
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 04 May '20

04 May '20

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160337 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160337#c10 Alexandros Toptsoglou <atoptsoglou(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |atoptsoglou(a)suse.com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Alexandros Toptsoglou <atoptsoglou(a)suse.com> --- Done -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0