Bug #16823

Upgrade Linux to 4.19.37-4+

Added by intrigeri 2019-06-19 06:37:35 . Updated 2019-06-20 14:38:59 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Elevated
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
Tails_3.14.1
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
bugfix/16823-linux-4.19.37-4+force-all-tests
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

Subtasks

Related issues

Blocks Tails - Feature #16209: Core work: Foundations Team Confirmed

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 06:37:46

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 06:41:58

  • Description updated

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 06:48:47

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.15 to Tails_3.14.1

(If ready in time. Won’t block/delay 3.14.1 for this.)

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 06:51:47

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Feature Branch set to bugfix/16823-linux-4.19.37-4+force-all-tests

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 06:59:10

If bumping the APT snapshot like I did so far ends up being an OK solution, we’ll need to bump its expiration time.

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 07:18:35

Bumping the “debian” APT snapshot pulls these upgrades:

… on top of current stable.

#7 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 10:25:24

intrigeri wrote:
> If bumping the APT snapshot like I did so far ends up being an OK solution, we’ll need to bump its expiration time.

Optimistically done this.

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2019-06-19 12:10:48

  • Status changed from In Progress to Needs Validation
  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to anonym

Full test suite run locally passed except:

  • Bug #16825 made 11 scenarios fail their After hook which checks for Tor leaks; I think the risk that this branch introduces new Tor leaks is very low but still, this is worrying.
  • Electrum, as expected
  • Most of features/torified_gnupg.feature failed; it may be that my test system has trouble connecting to keyservers today.

The run on Jenkins started only 2h ago so it won’t give us additional data points.

@anonym, I’ll let you make the go/no-go decision. Either way, I don’t think we should delay 3.14.1 due to this ticket so I’m not going to re-run failing scenarios. I’m busy elsewhere anyway.

#9 Updated by anonym 2019-06-19 13:10:07

  • Status changed from Needs Validation to Fix committed
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

Applied in changeset commit:tails|fe81e7e3384ef4e4e9e21c70aa18aa5c1a01c233.

#10 Updated by anonym 2019-06-19 13:12:16

  • Assignee deleted (anonym)

intrigeri wrote:
> Full test suite run locally passed except:
>
> * Bug #16825 made 11 scenarios fail their After hook which checks for Tor leaks; I think the risk that this branch introduces new Tor leaks is very low but still, this is worrying.

I made commit:7ff6c1d2ff6a065a4d492f9b63ff198308a91e8b (so I can inspect pcap files) and started a run locally. I’m assuming this is not a regression, but we’ll see.

> * Electrum, as expected

Ack!

> * Most of features/torified_gnupg.feature failed; it may be that my test system has trouble connecting to keyservers today.

Same for me, but it works when I test manually (so we’re good), so I guess it’s the onion redirection from our test network to the real Tor network (chutney_onionservice_redir() etc).

> anonym, I’ll let you make the go/no-go decision. Either way, I don’t think we should delay 3.14.1 due to this ticket so I’m not going to re-run failing scenarios. I’m busy elsewhere anyway.

I’m merging this now so I can proceed with the 3.14.1 release, but might return here (possibly reverting this merge) if my findings for the leaks are bad.

#11 Updated by anonym 2019-06-19 14:34:44

anonym wrote:
> intrigeri wrote:
> > Full test suite run locally passed except:
> >
> > * Bug #16825 made 11 scenarios fail their After hook which checks for Tor leaks; I think the risk that this branch introduces new Tor leaks is very low but still, this is worrying.
>
> I made commit:7ff6c1d2ff6a065a4d492f9b63ff198308a91e8b (so I can inspect pcap files) and started a run locally. I’m assuming this is not a regression, but we’ll see.

Turns out packetfu cannot parse RARP packets and this causes the issue.

#12 Updated by anonym 2019-06-20 14:38:59

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved