Hide Forgot
Created attachment 1136694 [details] core from pkttyagent Description of problem: When creating a rawhide boot.iso, a core file is left behind from pkttyagent. The failure is in main(), at g_assert (polkit_unix_process_get_start_time (POLKIT_UNIX_PROCESS (subject)) > 0); I assume pkttyagent is being started by systemd. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): polkit-0.113-5.fc24.x86_64
Thanks for your report. That assertion is after reading /proc/${getppid()}/stat, something like: > getppid() = 7995 > getuid() = 1000 > open("/proc/7995/stat", O_RDONLY) = 3 > fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 > fcntl(3, F_GETFL) = 0x8000 (flags O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) > fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 > mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x7f73c414b000 > read(3, "7995 (strace) S 7955 7995 7955 3"..., 4096) = 311 > read(3, "", 3072) = 0 > close(3) = 0 Those files are generally world-readable, and polkit does rather need the value; it is not a failure that can be blindly ignored. Do you see any SELinux denials perhaps? Can you easily obtain a strace?
There are no selinux denials, since lorax needs to run without selinux for other reasons. The failure is because there is no /proc. Is there a reason that polkit would need to run during a package install?
The polkit daemon, no. pkttyagent, easily: systemd scriptlets run systemctl, which runs pkttyagent to allow operations as non-root. This is talking hypotheticals, though; is it possible to find out the cause for certain? As a practical matter, it is easy enough to modify pkttyagent to fail with an error message to stderr instead of crashing; but if right now pkttyagent is failing and there is no indication that the caller cares or has been able to detect it (other than the core file left around), making the failure less drastic and even easier to silently ignore seems a bit dubious. (I am not terribly fond of starting a debate about whether /proc is or isn’t a mandatory component of the execution environment nowadays.)
> seems a bit dubious. … at least until we know the caller and we can say for certain that ignoring the failure is the right thing to do.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 25 development cycle. Changing version to '25'.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 25 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 25. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '25'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 25 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 25 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2017-12-12. Fedora 25 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.