snap-seccomp: add secondary arch for unrestricted snaps as well #3603

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 18, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
Collaborator

mvo5 commented Jul 18, 2017

When creating a @unrestricted filter we need to whitelist all
architectures or e.g. i386 apps on amd64 will fail.

Add secondary arch for unrestricted snaps as well
When creating a @unrestricted filter we need to whitelist all
architectures or e.g. i386 apps on amd64 will fail.

zyga approved these changes Jul 18, 2017

+1

Thanks for the commit message :-)

Contributor

zyga commented Jul 18, 2017

We could also use a test for this. I don't think we have one.

Codecov Report

Merging #3603 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3603      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage    74.9%   74.89%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         380      380              
  Lines       32949    32952       +3     
==========================================
- Hits        24682    24681       -1     
- Misses       6475     6478       +3     
- Partials     1792     1793       +1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cmd/snap-seccomp/main.go 49.79% <0%> (-0.64%) ⬇️
cmd/snap/cmd_aliases.go 93.33% <0%> (-1.67%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2c9d44f...f3085be. Read the comment docs.

@mvo5 mvo5 merged commit 1436db4 into snapcore:master Jul 18, 2017

1 of 7 checks passed

artful-amd64 autopkgtest running
Details
xenial-amd64 autopkgtest running
Details
xenial-i386 autopkgtest running
Details
xenial-ppc64el autopkgtest running
Details
yakkety-amd64 autopkgtest running
Details
zesty-amd64 autopkgtest running
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Contributor

tyhicks commented Jul 18, 2017

This looks correct to me. Thanks!

Why this PR and #3603 (they look the same)?

This looks fine though.

Contributor

zyga commented Jul 19, 2017

@jdstrand because this branch is PR #3603? I suspect you meant another PR that targets the release branch though.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment