March 2023 - openSUSE Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 1208792] New: [Build 20230228] aa_genprof: fails to parse logs of kernel 6.2
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208792 Bug ID: 1208792 Summary: [Build 20230228] aa_genprof: fails to parse logs of kernel 6.2 Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other URL: https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/3150997/modules/aa_g enprof/steps/33 OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: AppArmor Assignee: suse-beta(a)cboltz.de Reporter: dimstar(a)opensuse.org QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: openQA Blocker: Yes ## Observation openQA test in scenario opensuse-Tumbleweed-DVD-x86_64-apparmor@64bit fails in [aa_genprof](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/3150997/modules/aa_genprof/st… ## Test suite description Maintainer: llzhao(a)suse.com Test AppArmor tool with an existing disk image. ## Reproducible Fails since (at least) Build [20230228](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/3150997) (current job) ## Expected result Last good: [20230227](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/3148038) (or more recent) ## Further details Always latest result in this scenario: [latest](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/latest?arch=x86_64&distri=opensus… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 1208745] VUL-0: CVE-2023-27371: libmicrohttpd: parser bug that could be used to crash servers using the MHD_PostProcessor
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208745 Alexander Bergmann <abergmann(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |abergmann(a)suse.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208766] Kernel 6.2.1 does not suspend/hibernate anymore for AMD Ryzen 7 Pro
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208766 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208766#c8 --- Comment #8 from Frank Kr�ger <fkrueger(a)mailbox.org> --- Thank you for the clarification, I missed that since I was looking at upstream issues/changelog. Anyway, if kernel-default 6.2.1 lands in Tumbleweed, the hibernation/suspend issue will probabably hit many of us with secure boot enabled. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208584] GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER trashes windows entries on automatic system rollback
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208584 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208584#c13 --- Comment #13 from Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to Lubos Kocman from comment #7) > Not sure if our distribution default for systems where we expect snapper > should change this, or if we should install some extra config for grub that > would override the default or simply add this to %post in snapper > > # ensure that we do not drop entries from os-prober on rollback > if [ -f /etc/default/grub ]; then > sed -i 's/^GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER="true"/GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER="false"/' > /etc/default/grub > fi > > Thoughts? IMHO we basically have no clue why people disabled os-prober, so hardly come up with a justification needing to do that for them. One of the design principle of system rollback is the capability to walking back (potentially broken) boot config (grub.cfg) so long as it is unmodified. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208584] GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER trashes windows entries on automatic system rollback
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208584 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208584#c12 --- Comment #12 from Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> --- The /boot/grub2/grub.cfg and /etc/default/grub are both snapshotted so no discrepancy in this regard. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208584] GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER trashes windows entries on automatic system rollback
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208584 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208584#c11 --- Comment #11 from Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> --- It seems you have os-prober disabled back then, so a rollback or booting into fallback snapshot would bring the system back to that state? If so this is intended behavior because the fallback can be out of former readonly snapshot which 's previous linux system known to work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208766] Kernel 6.2.1 does not suspend/hibernate anymore for AMD Ryzen 7 Pro
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208766 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208766#c7 --- Comment #7 from Joey Lee <jlee(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to Frank Kr�ger from comment #5) > Given secure boot enabled, for kernel <= 6.2.0 we have > > cat /sys/kernel/security/lockdown > [none] integrity confidentiality > > while for kernel 6.2.1 > > cat /sys/kernel/security/lockdown > none [integrity] confidentiality > > Bug or feature? As for the latter, I don't see any hint in the changelog of > 6.2.1: https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/ChangeLog-6.2.1 > > Any idea? Thx. This is a feature, base on security point of view. The lockdown function be introduced to mainline kernel since v5.4: commit 000d388ed3bbed745f366ce71b2bb7c2ee70f449 Author: Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett(a)google.com> Date: Mon Aug 19 17:17:39 2019 -0700 security: Add a static lockdown policy LSM Like other distro, we add downstream patches to connect secure_boot with kernel lockdown function to allow users to switch this function. Then we enabled kernel lockdown function. Please see the change log of kernel-default package: > rpm -q --changelog kernel-default-6.2.1-1.1.g69e0e95.x86_64 | less * Sat Feb 18 2023 jlee(a)suse.com - arm64: lock down kernel in secure boot mode (jsc#SLE-15020, bsc#1198101). - efi: Lock down the kernel at the integrity level if booted in secure boot mode (jsc#SLE-9870, bsc#1198101). - efi: Lock down the kernel if booted in secure boot mode (jsc#SLE-9870, bsc#1198101). - Update config files. - The shim for openSUSE Tumbleweed needs to be reviewed by upstream and signed by Microsoft. So we need to lockdown kernel on x86_64 and arm64 because EFI secure boot. - We disable CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_IN_EFI_SECURE_BOOT in other architectures. - efi: Add an EFI_SECURE_BOOT flag to indicate secure boot mode (jsc#SLE-9870, bsc#1198101). - security: lockdown: expose a hook to lock the kernel down (jsc#SLE-9870, bsc#1198101). - commit a7d5b50 The reason is that other big distros are enabled lockdown functions, and connect this feature with EFI secure boot by downstream patches. On the other hand, openSUSE shim's opensuse-cert-prompt patch is NOT pass the upstream review for Microsoft signing. So we need to enable kernel lockdown functions to align other distros. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1204162] Win10 in all versions have no network
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204162 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204162#c23 --- Comment #23 from Lin Ma <lma(a)suse.com> --- Glad to hear that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1163737] Zypp PackageKit plugin exits when user interactivity would be required to solve an ambiguous packaging situation, causing updates via GUI package managers like GNOME Software and KDE Discover to fail
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163737 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163737#c5 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Kang <songchuan.kang(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to Nathaniel Graham from comment #4) > It's unfortunate that the provider and user of the API have such different > expectations. > > For what it's worth, I mildly lean toward Richard Hughes' position from a UX > perspective; users of a GUI updater app will, 9 times out of 10, not know > what do to do resolve packaging conflicts requiring interactivity anyway. I > think it would indeed be best to either do the most obviously correct thing, > or at least the most non-dangerous thing. The point that requiring > inactivity breaks unattended updates is also a valid one. > > Relatedly: in my experience on Tumbleweed, cases where interactivity was > required during an update were caused by instances of broken packaging, most > commonly de-sync between the Packman repo and the main repo. I've since > moved to Fedora KDE with the RPMFusion repo (which serves a similar function > to the Packman repo in openSUSE land), and I have not once experienced the > kind of repo de-sync problems that required manual interactivity there, or > in fact any kind of broken packaging issues at all, ever. So it also seems > possible to minimize the condition causing this requirement in the first > place, at least. And from a user perspective, that's the best solution. I do agree. There is definitely room to improve at openSUSE on how to properly distribute software/packages in various repositories, so that such issues can be minimized. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208503] New: Pannel height minimum value changed to 32
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Mar '23

01 Mar '23

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208503 Bug ID: 1208503 Summary: Pannel height minimum value changed to 32 Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: x86-64 OS: openSUSE Tumbleweed Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: KDE Workspace (Plasma) Assignee: opensuse-kde-bugs(a)opensuse.org Reporter: cosmin.tanczel(a)gmail.com QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- The panel height minimum value was 24 (as far as I remember) and now the minimum value changed to 32 making it look way to big. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 2