[Bug 1009973] Re: SRU upstream bugfix micro point release 3.2.5
Steve Langasek
steve.langasek at canonical.com
Fri Jun 29 23:17:19 UTC 2012
--- mdadm-3.2.3/config.c 2011-12-15 04:13:08.000000000 +0000
+++ mdadm-3.2.5/config.c 2012-05-18 07:10:03.000000000 +0000
@@ -921,19 +921,19 @@
* else 'yes'.
*/
struct dev_policy *p;
- int no=0, found_auto=0;
+ int no=0, found_homehost=0;
load_conffile();
pol = pol_find(pol, pol_auto);
pol_for_each(p, pol, version) {
if (strcmp(p->value, "yes") == 0)
return 1;
- if (strcmp(p->value, "auto") == 0)
- found_auto = 1;
+ if (strcmp(p->value, "homehost") == 0)
+ found_homehost = 1;
if (strcmp(p->value, "no") == 0)
no = 1;
}
- if (is_homehost && found_auto)
+ if (is_homehost && found_homehost)
return 1;
if (no)
return 0;
This appears to be an interface change. Why is this appropriate for an
SRU?
+mdadm (3.2.5-1ubuntu2~12.04.1) precise-proposed; urgency=low
This is not the preferred numbering convention, as documented at
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update_the_packaging>.
Please use 3.2.5-1ubuntu0.1 as the version number here. Please also
consolidate all the relevant information into a single changelog entry,
which is the convention for SRUs. Bug #920324, for instance, has
nothing to do with the SRU, and so should not be referenced in the
changelog.
--- mdadm-3.2.3/debian/checkarray 2012-01-29 05:36:30.000000000 +0000
+++ mdadm-3.2.5/debian/checkarray 2012-06-15 09:42:28.000000000 +0000
@@ -175,6 +175,21 @@
The only reference in the changelog for this change is a Debian bug
report. If this change is relevant for SRUing, it should get a separate
bug report in Launchpad for tracking (targeted to precise); otherwise
the change should be omitted from the SRU. (My recommendation is to
omit the change.)
Likewise for this change:
--- mdadm-3.2.3/debian/mdadm.logcheck.ignore.server 2012-01-29 05:36:30.000000000 +0000
+++ mdadm-3.2.5/debian/mdadm.logcheck.ignore.server 2012-06-15 09:42:28.000000000 +0000
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
For bug #1002357, please provide an explicit test case related to the
functionality of the udev rules so that we are verifying the empirical
correctness of the behavior, and not just the contents of the package.
--- mdadm-3.2.3/debian/rules 2012-02-10 00:11:11.000000000 +0000
+++ mdadm-3.2.5/debian/rules 2012-06-15 10:54:50.000000000 +0000
@@ -75,10 +63,8 @@
dh_installdirs
chmod +x debian/install-rc
PACKAGE=mdadm-udeb debian/install-rc check.d
- install -m0755 mdadm $(DESTDIR)/sbin
- install -m0755 mdadm.udeb $(DESTDIR_UDEB)/sbin/mdadm
- install -m0644 debian/mdadm.mdadm-blkid.udev \
- $(DESTDIR_UDEB)/etc/udev/rules.d/65-mdadm-blkid.rules
+
+ $(MAKE) install DESTDIR=$(DESTDIR)
install -m0755 debian/initramfs/hook \
$(DESTDIR)/usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks/mdadm
Build system changes are not normally appropriate for SRU. Either these
changes should be reverted / reduced to a minimal necessary change, or
the test case for this SRU needs to include an explicit check that the
contents of the binary packages have not changed.
--- mdadm-3.2.3/debian/source_mdadm.py 2011-03-18 15:58:15.000000000 +0000
+++ mdadm-3.2.5/debian/source_mdadm.py 2012-06-15 11:33:14.000000000 +0000
These changes are not required by or appropriate for SRU, and the risk
of regression is not entirely 0. Please drop this part of the delta.
--- mdadm-3.2.3/Grow.c 2011-12-23 03:10:01.000000000 +0000
+++ mdadm-3.2.5/Grow.c 2012-05-18 07:10:03.000000000 +0000
@@ -424,8 +424,8 @@
These upstream changes are quite extensive. I think they're only
acceptable in SRU on the grounds that this is not an operation one
performs on a RAID array as part of the normal operations; so while
there's risk of new bugs introduced here, the impact of any such bugs
that have escaped upstream QA is quite small, and the benefit of the
added sanity checks on resize operations is substantial.
--- mdadm-3.2.3/mdadm.c 2011-12-22 20:17:28.000000000 +0000
+++ mdadm-3.2.5/mdadm.c 2012-05-18 07:10:03.000000000 +0000
@@ -1046,15 +1064,14 @@
case O(BUILD,BitmapChunk):
case O(CREATE,BitmapChunk): /* bitmap chunksize */
bitmap_chunk = parse_size(optarg);
- if (bitmap_chunk < 0 ||
+ if (bitmap_chunk <= 0 ||
bitmap_chunk & (bitmap_chunk - 1)) {
fprintf(stderr,
Name ": invalid bitmap chunksize: %s\n",
optarg);
exit(2);
}
- /* convert sectors to B, chunk of 0 means 512B */
- bitmap_chunk = bitmap_chunk ? bitmap_chunk * 512 : 512;
+ bitmap_chunk = bitmap_chunk * 512;
continue;
case O(GROW, WriteBehind):
This is a backwards-incompatible behavior change that doesn't seem to
make sense in an SRU. Perhaps it should be dropped.
Rejecting this package from the queue since a reupload is needed for
some of the above issues.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to mdadm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1009973
Title:
SRU upstream bugfix micro point release 3.2.5
Status in “mdadm” package in Ubuntu:
Fix Released
Status in “mdadm” source package in Precise:
Confirmed
Bug description:
[IMPACT]
* Micro Stable Bug Fix release from upstream including many fixes for
the mdmon utility bug 957494 as well as other minor to medium severity
bug fixes
* Hardware enablement trump card, improved DFF and IMSM support
* Highly encouraged to upgrade by upsteam
* Reduced LTS maintenance due to synergy / resync with Wheezy
[TESTCASE]
* Verification of all the other bugs included in this SRU
* Quantal alpha 2 testing
* Wide testing
[Regression Potential]
* New software fixes bugs, but I also may introduce new as well.
3.2.5 was a bugfix to fix the 3.2.4 bugfix release =/ but overall
there is potential for regressions.
[Other Info]
ANNOUNCE-3.2.4:
http://neil.brown.name/git?p=mdadm;a=blob_plain;f=ANNOUNCE-3.2.4;h=e321678604c0c36a5a35e34693756e5b1595e45d;hb=HEAD
ANNOUNCE-3.2.5:
http://neil.brown.name/git?p=mdadm;a=blob_plain;f=ANNOUNCE-3.2.5;h=396da12a6f614bfe041f88de4f040a65366913d6;hb=HEAD
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mdadm/+bug/1009973/+subscriptions
More information about the foundations-bugs
mailing list