I don't think it's useful to bikeshed about the severity of an issue but...
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.
> b) using good old `xm' style Xen I never experienced any issue like
> this, just using a /26 subnet with xm on squeeze is fine.
This is totally unrelated.
> 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.
Besides this, I don't think it's reasonable to delay the release of
Wheezy just for this bug.
> 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.
> To extend the scope of what may qualify as a valid workaround:
>
> a) is there some valid use case that avoids using pif-reconfigure-ip and
> just let /etc/network/interfaces manage the IP?
I don't think so. XAPI needs to know how you configure your PIF.
> b) should the user put a /24 subnet on a dummy interface and configure
> eth0 or xenbr0 separately from XCP?
I don't think so.
> I also came across this:
>
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-api/2012-05/msg00104.html
>
> which contradicts this:
>
> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/XCP_toolstack_on_a_Debian-based_distribution#Setup_the_network.2Finterfaces_file
>
> Specifically, the mailing list posts suggests nothing should be in
> /etc/network/interfaces, but the wiki suggests that the interface should
> be described in /etc/network/interfaces (even though it will eventually
> be reconfigured by xcp-networkd later in the boot process)
As much as I know, you do have to configure stuff in
/etc/network/interfaces. This is described in the README.Debian for
xcp-xapi, under section 4.2 of the file. Though the networking might be
different when using openvswitch, I'm not sure about this.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
