Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Assorted stuff #3392

Merged
merged 8 commits into from Jun 4, 2016
Merged

Assorted stuff #3392

merged 8 commits into from Jun 4, 2016

Conversation

poettering
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

…anymore

This is redundant as SysV services get DefaultDependencides=yes anyway, and
thus conflict with shutdown.target anyway. Hence, let's simplify our code here.
…priate

Let's make sure SYSTEMD_COLORS is honour by more tools
As suggested here:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64737#c8

This adds a new call terminal_is_dumb() and makes use of this where
appropriate.
Let's better ignore an invalid message size parameter, than assume ridiculously
larger sizes.
@martinpitt
Copy link
Contributor

martinpitt commented May 31, 2016

The autokpgtest logs are inaccessible, I'll investigate/fix this. -- Indeed it seems there are problems with Openstack swift in our cloud, our admins are working on this.

@martinpitt
Copy link
Contributor

Swift is back, thus the logs work again. The failure is

======================================================================
FAIL: test_tmp_mount (__main__.ServicesTest)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/tmp/autopkgtest.TTV0xS/build.1pH/systemd/debian/tests/boot-and-services", line 130, in test_tmp_mount
    self.assertEqual(status, 3, status_out)
AssertionError: 4 != 3 : Failed to dump process list, ignoring: Unit tmp.mount not found.
● tmp.mount
   Loaded: not-found (Reason: No such file or directory)
   Active: inactive (dead)

from this test: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/tests/boot-and-services#n111 .

This was introduced in PR #3385 (which got merged despite a test regression), so it doesn't affect this PR.

@martinpitt
Copy link
Contributor

@poettering : What do you think about adding a label "ignore-ci-failure" for such cases where we reviewed CI regressions and justified them to be okay/good enough to land the PR?

@@ -633,7 +633,8 @@ static int parse_request(uint8_t code, uint8_t len, const void *option, void *us

break;
case SD_DHCP_OPTION_MAXIMUM_MESSAGE_SIZE:
if (len == 2)

if (len == 2 && unaligned_read_be16(option) >= sizeof(DHCPPacket))
req->max_optlen = unaligned_read_be16(option) - sizeof(DHCPPacket);

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if we shouldn't reject the packet instead. But maybe that's too harsh. Simply ignoring the invalid option sounds OK too.

@keszybz keszybz merged commit 20f8477 into systemd:master Jun 4, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants