Bug #6440

tails-additional-software crashes if persistence is not mounted

Added by alant 2013-11-26 09:31:13 . Updated 2014-03-19 07:34:20 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Persistence
Target version:
Tails_0.23
Start date:
2013-11-26
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
feature/create-additional-software-config
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
0
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

In current experimental, tails-additional-software crashes if /live/persistence/TailsData_unlocked is not there. It should exit gracefully if persistence is not enabled.

Subtasks

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2013-11-27 01:19:46

> In current experimental, tails-additional-software crashes if
> /live/persistence/TailsData_unlocked is not there. It should exit gracefully if
> persistence is not enabled.

If that’s a regression, please raise the severity to “Elevated”.

#2 Updated by alant 2013-11-30 03:43:30

  • Priority changed from Normal to Elevated

There is already a fix in feature/create-additional-software-config. I didn’t build a test ISO, but can do a formal review and merge for 0.22 final. Else, if the RM consider it important enough, they might merge its current state (only tested in a running Tails).

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2013-11-30 04:37:37

alant wrote:
> There is already a fix in feature/create-additional-software-config.

I see no commit in there that is not in devel.

How does this affect users in practice?

#4 Updated by alant 2013-11-30 10:54:53

> I see no commit in there that is not in devel.

This is now pushed, sorry.

> How does this affect users in practice?

I don’t think so. Python exits with a backtrace but I didn’t notice any visible effect (should we check GDM PostLogin script to measure the consequences?).

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2013-11-30 12:36:33

>> How does this affect users in practice?

> I don’t think so. Python exits with a backtrace but I didn’t notice
> any visible effect

Good. This seems to be material for 0.23, then. I’d rather avoid the
risk of regression at this point of the 0.22 release process, in
this case.

> (should we check GDM PostLogin script to measure the
> consequences?).

Yes, please :)

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2013-12-02 00:55:12

  • Priority changed from Elevated to Normal

Alan explained on tails-dev that this has no practical consequence on users, so downgrading priority.

#7 Updated by alant 2014-01-13 04:48:33

  • Assignee changed from alant to anonym
  • Target version set to Tails_0.23
  • % Done changed from 0 to 90
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2014-02-15 23:29:09

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2014-02-21 19:42:20

  • Category set to Persistence

#10 Updated by anonym 2014-02-27 02:11:36

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • Assignee deleted (anonym)
  • % Done changed from 90 to 100
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Merged!

#11 Updated by anonym 2014-03-19 07:34:20

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved