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

google-compute-image: fix Yama LSM option conflict #24267

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 26, 2017

Conversation

8573
Copy link
Contributor

@8573 8573 commented Mar 24, 2017

Having fixed the Google Compute Engine image build process's copying
of store paths in PR #24264, I ran nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch...
and the GCE image broke again, because it sets the NixOS configuration
option for the sysctl variable kernel.yama.ptrace_scope to
mkDefault "1", i.e., with override priority 1000, and now the
sysctl module sets the same option to mkDefault "0" (this was
changed in commit 86721a5).

This patch raises the override priority of the Google Compute Engine
image configuration's definition of the Yama sysctl option to 500
(still lower than the priority of an unmodified option definition).

I have tested that this patch allows the Google Compute Engine image
to again build successfully for me.

Having fixed the Google Compute Engine image build process's copying
of store paths in PR NixOS#24264, I ran `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch`...
and the GCE image broke again, because it sets the NixOS configuration
option for the sysctl variable `kernel.yama.ptrace_scope` to
`mkDefault "1"`, i.e., with override priority 1000, and now the
`sysctl` module sets the same option to `mkDefault "0"` (this was
changed in commit 86721a5).

This patch raises the override priority of the Google Compute Engine
image configuration's definition of the Yama sysctl option to 500
(still lower than the priority of an unmodified option definition).

I have tested that this patch allows the Google Compute Engine image
to again build successfully for me.
@mention-bot
Copy link

@8573, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @rbvermaa, @oconnorr and @Phreedom to be potential reviewers.

@joachifm
Copy link
Contributor

I expect this needs to be picked to release as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants