GNU bug report logs - #35229
[PATCH] gnu: docker: Check for error on XFRM.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#35229: closed ([PATCH] gnu: docker: Check for error on XFRM.)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 17:07:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:05:55 +0200
with message-id <20190414190555.38329fda <at> scratchpost.org>
and subject line Re: [bug#35229] [PATCH] gnu: docker: Check for error on XFRM.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #35229,
regarding [PATCH] gnu: docker: Check for error on XFRM.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
35229: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=35229
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: docker: Check for error on XFRM.
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:36:28 +0200

* gnu/packages/patches/docker-use-fewer-modprobes.patch: Check for error on
XFRM.
---
 .../patches/docker-use-fewer-modprobes.patch  | 30 +++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/docker-use-fewer-modprobes.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/docker-use-fewer-modprobes.patch
index 2779e1be5d..4e4a45b6ce 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/patches/docker-use-fewer-modprobes.patch
+++ b/gnu/packages/patches/docker-use-fewer-modprobes.patch
@@ -103,17 +103,35 @@ See <https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/38930>.
  
 --- docker-18.09.0-checkout/vendor/github.com/docker/libnetwork/ns/init_linux.go.orig	2019-03-19 11:23:20.738316699 +0100
 +++ docker-18.09.0-checkout/vendor/github.com/docker/libnetwork/ns/init_linux.go	2019-03-19 11:27:57.149753073 +0100
-@@ -100,12 +100,7 @@
+@@ -76,12 +76,8 @@ func NlHandle() *netlink.Handle {
+ func getSupportedNlFamilies() []int {
+ 	fams := []int{syscall.NETLINK_ROUTE}
+ 	// NETLINK_XFRM test
+-	if err := loadXfrmModules(); err != nil {
+-		if checkXfrmSocket() != nil {
+-			logrus.Warnf("Could not load necessary modules for IPSEC rules: %v", err)
+-		} else {
+-			fams = append(fams, syscall.NETLINK_XFRM)
+-		}
++	if err := checkXfrmSocket(); err != nil {
++		logrus.Warnf("Could not load necessary modules for IPSEC rules: %v", err)
+ 	} else {
+ 		fams = append(fams, syscall.NETLINK_XFRM)
+ 	}
+@@ -99,16 +95,6 @@ func getSupportedNlFamilies() []int {
+ 	return fams
  }
  
- func loadXfrmModules() error {
+-func loadXfrmModules() error {
 -	if out, err := exec.Command("modprobe", "-va", "xfrm_user").CombinedOutput(); err != nil {
 -		return fmt.Errorf("Running modprobe xfrm_user failed with message: `%s`, error: %v", strings.TrimSpace(string(out)), err)
 -	}
 -	if out, err := exec.Command("modprobe", "-va", "xfrm_algo").CombinedOutput(); err != nil {
 -		return fmt.Errorf("Running modprobe xfrm_algo failed with message: `%s`, error: %v", strings.TrimSpace(string(out)), err)
 -	}
-+	// Those are automatically loaded when someone opens the socket anyway.
- 	return nil
- }
- 
+-	return nil
+-}
+-
+ // API check on required xfrm modules (xfrm_user, xfrm_algo)
+ func checkXfrmSocket() error {
+ 	fd, err := syscall.Socket(syscall.AF_NETLINK, syscall.SOCK_RAW, syscall.NETLINK_XFRM)

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 35229-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#35229] [PATCH] gnu: docker: Check for error on XFRM.
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:05:55 +0200

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 17:16:57 +0200
Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org> skribis:
> 
> > * gnu/packages/patches/docker-use-fewer-modprobes.patch: Check for error on
> > XFRM.  
> 
> I suppose upstream adopted this, right?  Go for it!

It was a request for change from them in the pull request.  The pull request is
still pending.

But I think it's better to check for errors.  So, pushed...

[Message part 5 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.