Bug 2119829
| Summary: | Use function parameter algo for name of hash | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michal Domonkos <mdomonko> |
| Component: | ima-evm-utils | Assignee: | Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 35 | CC: | bmeneg, laura, rgoldber, vgoyal |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | ima-evm-utils-1.3.2-4.fc35 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-10-12 17:34:37 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Michal Domonkos
2022-08-19 14:34:49 UTC
Hey, hi Michal, how are you? Good to see you again :) I'll try to fix it by backporting both changes until the end of the week. Greetings Bruno, that sounds good, thanks :) Michal, I prepared a scratch build for you to test, would that be fine? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91447313 (I created the SRPM in a fedora36 machine, but the target is indeed f35) I'm applying only the patch https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/ima-evm-utils/ci/309d3369bb52179cbdb11760c0b006932a42b52f/, since applying the second one with its parent doesn't really apply well to F35 update policy, where SHA1 were still fine. Please, let me know if that works, then I can submit an update request to bodhi. *** Bug 2107225 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to Bruno Meneguele from comment #3) > I'm applying only the patch > https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/ima-evm-utils/ci/ > 309d3369bb52179cbdb11760c0b006932a42b52f/, > since applying the second one with its parent doesn't really apply well to > F35 update policy, where SHA1 were still fine. Oh yup, makes sense! > Please, let me know if that works, then I can submit an update request to > bodhi. I've tried this briefly and hashes are correctly reported in the output: hash(sha256): 08a09f7b8668b6df35bac31c324b5eae09a6e78de9c6466439634c383b70a326 From which I assume the internal logic now works correctly, too. Feel free to proceed with the update! FEDORA-2022-cd0501fc8f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cd0501fc8f Michal, would you mind adding a +1 in the update request at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cd0501fc8f ? Many thanks! FEDORA-2022-cd0501fc8f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-cd0501fc8f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cd0501fc8f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2022-cd0501fc8f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days |