6:58 a.m.
Should we apply updates automatically in the cloud images? I like the idea
of keeping people protected against security vulnerabilities. Because of
how updates in Fedora work right now, it's also possible that an update will
break things. (We'd certainly need a large amount of testing of things like
updates to cloud-init, which apparently can make huge incompatible changes
going from 0.7.0 to 0.7.1.)
Amazon Linux does automatic updates (both at first boot and periodically).
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
8:05 a.m.
On 12/14/2012 06:58 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Should we apply updates automatically in the cloud images? I like the
idea
of keeping people protected against security vulnerabilities. Because of
how updates in Fedora work right now, it's also possible that an update will
break things. (We'd certainly need a large amount of testing of things like
updates to cloud-init, which apparently can make huge incompatible changes
going from 0.7.0 to 0.7.1.)
Fedora based images ... no. I vote no.
It's frustrating enough on a local machine when an update goes wrong.
But on an Amazon machine, you have no console during bootup. So if
something is going wrong during bootup ... you're out of luck.
Amazon Linux does automatic updates (both at first boot and
periodically).
Amazon Linux is based off RHEL, not Fedora.
I don't have a problem with RHEL based OS's doing automatic updates.
Troy
8:17 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
It's frustrating enough on a local machine when an update goes
wrong.
But on an Amazon machine, you have no console during bootup. So if
something is going wrong during bootup ... you're out of luck.
Yeah. On the other hand, with Fedora's fast pace, leading edge nature, and
huge package selection, I feel like we're doing our users a disservice by
not providing some level of protection.
What if we did security updates only, by default? (Right now, yum-cron
doesn't support this, so it'd be a F19 feature.)
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
8:21 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:17:21AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
> It's frustrating enough on a local machine when an update goes wrong.
> But on an Amazon machine, you have no console during bootup. So if
> something is going wrong during bootup ... you're out of luck.
Yeah. On the other hand, with Fedora's fast pace, leading edge nature, and
huge package selection, I feel like we're doing our users a disservice by
not providing some level of protection.
Add new images will all updates applied and minimal tests of them.
What if we did security updates only, by default? (Right now, yum-cron
doesn't support this, so it'd be a F19 feature.)
Might be an option, not sure this is stable enough.
regards,
Florian La Roche
8:26 a.m.
On 12/14/2012 08:21 AM, Florian La Roche wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:17:21AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
>> It's frustrating enough on a local machine when an update goes wrong.
>> But on an Amazon machine, you have no console during bootup. So if
>> something is going wrong during bootup ... you're out of luck.
>
> Yeah. On the other hand, with Fedora's fast pace, leading edge nature, and
> huge package selection, I feel like we're doing our users a disservice by
> not providing some level of protection.
Add new images will all updates applied and minimal tests of them.
>
> What if we did security updates only, by default? (Right now, yum-cron
> doesn't support this, so it'd be a F19 feature.)
Might be an option, not sure this is stable enough.
regards,
Florian La Roche
I have no problem with automatic security only updates on Fedora, if we
can do that.
Troy
9:18 a.m.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Matthew Miller wrote:
Should we apply updates automatically in the cloud images? I
like the idea of keeping people protected against security
vulnerabilities. ...
I would recommend against it, as you run the risk of breaking
instances for people not living within the four corners of the
package management system
As a comparison with 'real history,' SKV had a 'this
distribution is EOL' tool as well, and I believe abandoned the
tool, because people do not WANT to be automatically protected
;)
I am not against having a 'nag' function:
1. at deploy and each start time, see if there is a
recipient set for the 'root' owner, and as necessary, prompt
with a wizard to configure one, or to decline it
2. check timestamps and as the results of the wizard
imply, nag
3. optionally change /etc/issue to nag
4. extend to taste
-- Russ herrold
8:02 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
> It's frustrating enough on a local machine when an update goes wrong.
> But on an Amazon machine, you have no console during bootup. So if
> something is going wrong during bootup ... you're out of luck.
Yeah. On the other hand, with Fedora's fast pace, leading edge nature, and
huge package selection, I feel like we're doing our users a disservice by
not providing some level of protection.
This is a case for publishing new images periodically, not causing
churn on instances that already exist. If we were talking about a VPS
provider then this might be different, but on a cloud instances are
ephemeral. If I want to make a fleet of instances get the latest
stuff then I'll create a new image (or sometimes a new user-data
script) and replace all of the old instances with instances of the new
image.
What if we did security updates only, by default? (Right now,
yum-cron
doesn't support this, so it'd be a F19 feature.)
I'd be okay with this (or even an all-kinds-of-updates version) if and
only if it becomes the default for the whole distribution. A cloud
image is even less well-suited to automatic updates than a desktop or
server, and if we can't justify it for those cases, it definitely
doesn't belong here either.
--
Garrett Holmstrom
12:21 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 06:02:01PM -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> What if we did security updates only, by default? (Right now,
yum-cron
> doesn't support this, so it'd be a F19 feature.)
I'd be okay with this (or even an all-kinds-of-updates version) if and
only if it becomes the default for the whole distribution. A cloud
image is even less well-suited to automatic updates than a desktop or
server, and if we can't justify it for those cases, it definitely
doesn't belong here either.
Well, with the desktop, there's theoretically someone who will see GUI-based
"updates available" notifications and apply them. I'm happy to make the
case
for security updates for the whole distro, though. (For F19+.)
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
12:04 a.m.
On 2012-12-16 10:21, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 06:02:01PM -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>> What if we did security updates only, by default? (Right now, yum-cron
>> doesn't support this, so it'd be a F19 feature.)
> I'd be okay with this (or even an all-kinds-of-updates version) if and
> only if it becomes the default for the whole distribution. A cloud
> image is even less well-suited to automatic updates than a desktop or
> server, and if we can't justify it for those cases, it definitely
> doesn't belong here either.
Well, with the desktop, there's theoretically someone who will see GUI-based
"updates available" notifications and apply them. I'm happy to make the
case
for security updates for the whole distro, though. (For F19+.)
Sure, but a cloud instance isn't a desktop. It isn't really even a
virtual server. Cloud instances are disposable -- you service them by
replacing them, not by updating or changing them. This is different
from the other kinds of systems that the distribution targets, and
automatically updating instances breaks that model.
Simply put, if we're building a cloud image then I would like to see
that image's default behavior match the way cloud applications generally
work. Since a Fedora image should still be Fedora, I can certainly live
with automatic updates if the rest of the community disagrees with me,
but when we target a new platform like the cloud I believe we ought to
encourage habits that are appropriate for it rather than encouraging old
workflows that can make managing stuff in the cloud more difficult.
Those are my two cents, anyway.
--
Garrett Holmstrom
8:26 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Garrett Holmstrom
<gholms(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2012-12-16 10:21, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 06:02:01PM -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> What if we did security updates only, by default? (Right now, yum-cron
>>> doesn't support this, so it'd be a F19 feature.)
>>
>> I'd be okay with this (or even an all-kinds-of-updates version) if and
>> only if it becomes the default for the whole distribution. A cloud
>> image is even less well-suited to automatic updates than a desktop or
>> server, and if we can't justify it for those cases, it definitely
>> doesn't belong here either.
>
>
> Well, with the desktop, there's theoretically someone who will see
> GUI-based
> "updates available" notifications and apply them. I'm happy to make
the
> case
> for security updates for the whole distro, though. (For F19+.)
Sure, but a cloud instance isn't a desktop. It isn't really even a virtual
server. Cloud instances are disposable -- you service them by replacing
them, not by updating or changing them. This is different from the other
kinds of systems that the distribution targets, and automatically updating
instances breaks that model.
Simply put, if we're building a cloud image then I would like to see that
image's default behavior match the way cloud applications generally work.
Since a Fedora image should still be Fedora, I can certainly live with
automatic updates if the rest of the community disagrees with me, but when
we target a new platform like the cloud I believe we ought to encourage
habits that are appropriate for it rather than encouraging old workflows
that can make managing stuff in the cloud more difficult.
+1
Well said.
Those are my two cents, anyway.
--
Garrett Holmstrom
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
11:54 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:26:25AM -0500, Andy Grimm wrote:
> Since a Fedora image should still be Fedora, I can certainly
live with
> automatic updates if the rest of the community disagrees with me, but when
> we target a new platform like the cloud I believe we ought to encourage
> habits that are appropriate for it rather than encouraging old workflows
> that can make managing stuff in the cloud more difficult.
+1
I think you guys are right for general package updates and bug fixes. But I
don't think cloud is anything particularly new in giving the luxury to avoid
patching vulnerabilities.
I'm not going to change anything now, but I think we need to think about how
to do this. Amazon Linux automatically applies critical security fixes, and
notifies on login of important ones. I'm not so keen on the "on login"
approach, because I think _that's_ the "old workflow".
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
2:54 p.m.
On 2012-12-18 9:54, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:26:25AM -0500, Andy Grimm wrote:
>> Since a Fedora image should still be Fedora, I can certainly live with
>> automatic updates if the rest of the community disagrees with me, but when
>> we target a new platform like the cloud I believe we ought to encourage
>> habits that are appropriate for it rather than encouraging old workflows
>> that can make managing stuff in the cloud more difficult.
> +1
I think you guys are right for general package updates and bug fixes. But I
don't think cloud is anything particularly new in giving the luxury to avoid
patching vulnerabilities.
I'm not going to change anything now, but I think we need to think about how
to do this. Amazon Linux automatically applies critical security fixes, and
notifies on login of important ones. I'm not so keen on the "on login"
approach, because I think _that's_ the "old workflow".
It's harder to sell that idea for Fedora than it is for operating
systems with less churn, because security updates quickly end up getting
conflated with enhancements and other changes. That doesn't negate your
point, though. Does anyone have any useful thoughts/experiences with that?
--
Garrett Holmstrom
4146
days inactive
4150
days old
11 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Andy Grimm -
Florian La Roche -
Garrett Holmstrom -
Matthew Miller -
R P Herrold -
Troy Dawson