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

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 35229 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 35229 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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 #8 received at 35229 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: 35229 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#35229] [PATCH] gnu: docker: Check for error on XFRM.
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 17:16:57 +0200

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!

Ludo’.

Message #13 received at 35229-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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 1 (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 2 (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.