[Pkg-xen-devel] Bug#695221: Bug#695221: confirmed bug, serious

[Daniel Pocock]

On 11/02/13 03:48, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I don't think it's useful to bikeshed about the severity of an issue but...
>
>   

I can see you've put a lot of work into this package and I think people
will want to use it, especially when wheezy is released

That's why I'm reporting stuff like this and also providing suggested
solutions (e.g the possible workaround)

> On 02/10/2013 11:45 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>   
>> It is serious because
>>
>> a) it makes the package and the whole system unusable for all but one
>> very specific network configuration (users with a /24)
>>     
> Using a /24 is all but a "very specific network configuration", it's in
> fact the most common one.
>
>   
<snip>
>> c) it will lead to a complete loss of connectivity for people accessing
>> a host remotely to set up XCP
>>     
> Sure, but it doesn't match the "serious" definition:
>
> makes the package in question unusable by most or all users, or causes
> data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts
> of users who use the package.
>
>   
I think that comes back to point (a) - if `most' or even a lot of users
are not using /24 (which is not clear to me), and if there is no
workaround, then maybe it is serious


> Besides this, I don't think it's reasonable to delay the release of
> Wheezy just for this bug.
>
>   

Having it marked RC may allow a patch into wheezy.  Maybe even a small
patch:

- updating the README

- changing pif-reconfigure-ip to give an error if the user tries a
netmask that is not supported, e.g.

"XCP only works on a Class C subnet with a netmask 255.255.255.0.  Your
changes have not been applied.
See bug 695221 or the README file."

These things would be small fixes but would make the user's first
experience of XCP less frustrating

The last thing you want is for people to get frustrated and start
thinking that they should try the Ubuntu version or the ISO installer:
http://www.xen.org/download/xcp/index_1.6.0.html#install

>> I did a `find' in /etc and /var and I located the following file:
>>
>> /var/lib/xcp/networkd.db
>>
>> which contains the value {"interface_config":  ......"MY ADDRESS", 32]]]
>>
>> The 32 is the bad subnet mask.  Using vi, I replaced it with 29  (for a
>> /29), rebooted, and it came up OK.
>>     
> That's interesting!
>
> I've added Mike and Jon as Cc:, hoping that they will be able to tell
> wtf is going on, and why the db is being wrong.
>
>   
>> As I don't know XCP very well, I
>> don't want to suggest this is a valid workaround.  Could anyone with
>> more experience confirm if that file can be modified by hand in this
>> case?  Is there something else that could come along and clobber that
>> file?  Does xcp-networkd need to be stopped before modifying the file
>> safely?
>>     
> Mike must know.
>
>   
>> If there is a workaround (what I describe above, or something else) for
>> this such that a /29 or some other valid netmask can be enabled, then
>> the bug could probably be downgraded to important but certainly not
>> normal, it is just too disruptive.
>>     
> Ultimately, this is the job of the maintainer of a given package to
> decide the seriousness of a bug. To me, setting it to either normal or
> important is exactly the same (eg: it is on my radar, and I really want
> to have it fix), and discussing the seriousness doesn't help. Discussing
> ways to fix it does.
>
>   
It's not quite the same, because the release team wouldn't accept a
patch/unblock request for a normal issue

I'm hoping that the fix for this might be quite trivial and therefore
acceptable to the release team.