Public bug reported:
[impact]
the sysctl.d file /usr/lib/sysctl.d/protect-links.conf is misnamed, due
to lacking the expected leading number to order it. This results in it
being evaluated after all other number-prefixed conf files, effectively
overriding any conflicting configuration in the other files, including
any admin-provided files in /etc/sysctl.d.
Additionally, this file should not be included at all, as (unlike
Debian) Ubuntu assumes systemd will always be installed, thus the sysctl
settings from this file will be provided by the systemd-provided sysctl
config files.
[test case]
create a file, e.g. /etc/sysctl.d/99-test.conf, with any config that
also exists in /usr/lib/sysctl.d/protect-links.conf but with a different
setting, and reboot, then check which value was used.
[regression potential]
any regression would likely result in incorrect or unexpected values for
the sysctls contained in this conf file
[scope]
this is needed in f and later
this file is not present in b
however, see other info
[other info]
while this bug exists in f and later, it's also trivial to work around
it (though not obvious) by renaming the manual configuration file, e.g.
instead of using /etc/sysctl.d/99-custom.conf a local admin should
instead use /etc/sysctl.d/z-custom.conf so the custom file is lexically
after 'protect-links.conf'.
Since removing the file entirely could result in a change in behavior,
if the local admin has explicitly modified the file or taken other
steps, and since it's trivial (though again, not obvious) to override
the file lexically, this seems like it should not be SRUed, but only
fixed in the development release.
Also, since Debian's policy does allow for systems that do *not* use
systemd, I'm not opening a bug against Debian to remove the file.
** Affects: procps (Ubuntu)
Importance: Low
Assignee: Dan Streetman (ddstreet)
Status: In Progress
** Affects: procps (Ubuntu Bionic)
Importance: Undecided
Status: Invalid
** Affects: procps (Ubuntu Focal)
Importance: Undecided
Status: Invalid
** Affects: procps (Ubuntu Hirsute)
Importance: Undecided
Status: Won't Fix
** Affects: procps (Ubuntu Impish)
Importance: Low
Assignee: Dan Streetman (ddstreet)
Status: In Progress
** Also affects: procps (Ubuntu Hirsute)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: procps (Ubuntu Focal)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: procps (Ubuntu Impish)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: procps (Ubuntu Bionic)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Bionic)
Status: New => Invalid
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Focal)
Status: New => Invalid
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Hirsute)
Status: New => Won't Fix
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Impish)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Impish)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Dan Streetman (ddstreet)
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Impish)
Importance: Undecided => Low
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to procps in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1938585
Title:
sysctl.d file is misnamed and unneeded
Status in procps package in Ubuntu:
In Progress
Status in procps source package in Bionic:
Invalid
Status in procps source package in Focal:
Invalid
Status in procps source package in Hirsute:
Won't Fix
Status in procps source package in Impish:
In Progress
Bug description:
[impact]
the sysctl.d file /usr/lib/sysctl.d/protect-links.conf is misnamed,
due to lacking the expected leading number to order it. This results
in it being evaluated after all other number-prefixed conf files,
effectively overriding any conflicting configuration in the other
files, including any admin-provided files in /etc/sysctl.d.
Additionally, this file should not be included at all, as (unlike
Debian) Ubuntu assumes systemd will always be installed, thus the
sysctl settings from this file will be provided by the systemd-
provided sysctl config files.
[test case]
create a file, e.g. /etc/sysctl.d/99-test.conf, with any config that
also exists in /usr/lib/sysctl.d/protect-links.conf but with a
different setting, and reboot, then check which value was used.
[regression potential]
any regression would likely result in incorrect or unexpected values
for the sysctls contained in this conf file
[scope]
this is needed in f and later
this file is not present in b
however, see other info
[other info]
while this bug exists in f and later, it's also trivial to work around
it (though not obvious) by renaming the manual configuration file,
e.g. instead of using /etc/sysctl.d/99-custom.conf a local admin
should instead use /etc/sysctl.d/z-custom.conf so the custom file is
lexically after 'protect-links.conf'.
Since removing the file entirely could result in a change in behavior,
if the local admin has explicitly modified the file or taken other
steps, and since it's trivial (though again, not obvious) to override
the file lexically, this seems like it should not be SRUed, but only
fixed in the development release.
Also, since Debian's policy does allow for systems that do *not* use
systemd, I'm not opening a bug against Debian to remove the file.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/1938585/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
