Drawing lessons from fatal SELinux bug #1054350
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Sat Jan 25 10:43:22 UTC 2014
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > * That update made it out to the stable updates! In other words, the
> > > draconian Update Policies that were enacted in a vain attempt to prevent
> > > such issues from happening utterly failed at catching this bug.
> > Those policies are not "draconian" enough . On erroneous belief that
> > a +1 from three different testers would mean that the update has seen
> > enough testing, the test update has been published with the default karma
> > threshold of +3. The testers have failed. It's too simple for testers to
> > rush through the voting in bodhi without testing the updates
> > painstakingly. "The faster the better" has lead to a fatal mistake in
> > this case.
> I think that's being unnecessarily harsh on the testers. It's not at all
> obvious to anyone that you ought to test update/install of another
> package in order to validate an update to selinux-policy-targeted .
> Hell, I don't do that.
Doesn't / can't AutoQA (or whatever we're calling it these days) pick
up the new package, install it in a VM, and run through some automated
- Does Fedora still boot with this package added?
- Does GNOME still come up?
- Does yum still work?
At least the third one might have automatically found this bug.
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
More information about the devel