[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#985617: glibc: flaky autopkgtest on most architectures

Hi Aurelien,

On 25-04-2021 01:55, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It appears that all the failures are related to containers. I have been
> able to reproduce the issue with a bullseye kernel, which defaults to
> kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone=1. It seems the autopkgtest runners
> still use a buster kernel (at least in the case of this build log).

That's correct, all workers run stable except s390x.

> Could it be that kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone is enabled on some of
> the runners? It doesn't seem to be the case of all the runners as the
> autopkgtest ran successfully for the latest glibc upload.

paul@mulciber ~/debian-maint/ci.d.n-config $ rake -j40 run:workers
# Enter command to run (use arrow keys for history):
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_userns_clone
  ci-worker-armhf-01: 0
         ci-worker13: 1
  ci-worker-s390x-01: 1
         ci-worker12: 0
         ci-worker11: 0
         ci-worker03: 0
         ci-worker05: 0
   ci-worker-i386-04: 1
   ci-worker-i386-01: 1
   ci-worker-i386-03: 1
         ci-worker06: 0
         ci-worker01: 1
         ci-worker09: 0
         ci-worker07: 0
   ci-worker-i386-02: 0
         ci-worker02: 0
         ci-worker10: 0
ci-worker-ppc64el-02: 0
ci-worker-ppc64el-04: 0
         ci-worker04: 0
         ci-worker08: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-04: 0
ci-worker-ppc64el-03: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-07: 1
  ci-worker-arm64-02: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-05: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-06: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-03: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-11: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-08: 0
  ci-worker-arm64-09: 1
  ci-worker-arm64-10: 0
ci-worker-ppc64el-01: 0

[Note: some ci-workerXX are i386 workers, most are amd64].

> In anycase as it is reproducible with the bullseye kernel, this
> definitely needs a fix.

Thanks for working on this. If I want to make our workers equal, I guess
changing them all to the default sounds sane, right? Do you know if the
default is different for buster and bullseye? If so, does it make sense
to already go with the bullseye default?


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: