[00:58:58] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available
[01:10:51] --- Simon Wilkinson has left
[01:10:51] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available
[01:10:51] --- Simon Wilkinson has left
[01:15:13] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available
[01:22:13] --- Simon Wilkinson has left
[01:30:53] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available
[01:54:54] --- Simon Wilkinson has left
[05:32:45] --- meffie has become available
[05:37:54] --- wiesand has become available
[05:48:45] --- Marc Dionne has become available
[06:16:24] --- meffie has left
[06:16:27] --- meffie has become available
[06:19:23] --- Marc Dionne has left
[06:20:16] --- Marc Dionne has become available
[06:56:59] --- dbrashear has become available
[07:01:22] <wiesand> Hi All
[07:02:27] <wiesand> Marc: any Linux news?
[07:02:54] <Marc Dionne> hi stephan.  we're still ok with current mainline
[07:03:24] <wiesand> Great.
[07:04:12] <wiesand> Next topic: Will we want 10876 for 1.6.8?
[07:04:24] --- deason has become available
[07:05:29] <wiesand> Hi Andrew. Thanks a lot for your "gerrit night shift".
[07:06:57] <meffie> morning
[07:07:01] * kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl arrives
[07:07:16] <deason> 10876 seems desirable, but not "really urgent" or whatnot
[07:08:05] <wiesand> Ok. Not a blocker, but nice to have of ready in time, and that seems likely.
[07:08:53] <wiesand> +1s trickling in for many of the changes left on 1.6.x - thanks.
[07:09:30] <wiesand> Andrew: any news on the multiple mounts issue?
[07:12:04] <wiesand> It seems not. So, next topic: 1.6.7 security release. Any news?
[07:12:11] <deason> I'm getting the impression red hat may be doing something from their side
[07:12:20] <deason> but no new news of the implementation here, just working on it when I can
[07:13:13] <wiesand> Red Hat doing something would be good of course. But I understand the bind mount implementation is very desirable in the longer run anyway?
[07:15:14] <deason> my expectation is that anything they do is just going to "buy us time", or provide some sites with a temporary workaround
[07:15:20] <Marc Dionne> there's also some patches from Bruce Fields floating around for mainline, possibly for 3.15, which make d_splice_alias error out if it find an alias, which will force us to have some type of fix - not necessarily the bind mount one though
[07:16:03] <deason> well, we can also call d_materialise_unique as he mentioned, but it doesn't seem like that solves all problems
[07:16:14] <Marc Dionne> it's EXPORT_GPL
[07:16:21] <wiesand> :-(
[07:16:35] <deason> oh, I didn't even look at that, hah
[07:16:48] <meffie> gah.
[07:16:59] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Someone should point that out to him.
[07:17:00] <wiesand> gplonly on mainline? or red hat only?
[07:17:15] <Marc Dionne> on mainline, not sure about the RH version
[07:17:25] <deason> on mainline; I don't think red hat would change that but I could check
[07:17:50] <deason> gpl-only on red hat according to redpatch
[07:18:07] <wiesand> Probably not. They made stuff gplonly on their source when it wasn't in mainline in the past, and then opened it up when SGI needed it.
[07:18:27] <wiesand> So in that case there'd be hope. But not if it's gplonly updtream.
[07:19:20] <wiesand> So, not an option. Let's hope his patches don't make 3.14.
[07:19:49] <Marc Dionne> 3.14 would be very surprising, i don't expect it
[07:21:22] <wiesand> Fine. We can worry later on -devel then. Still, pointing out to him how much the patches could hurt us due to the alternative being gplonly seems a good idea...
[07:21:42] --- Marc Dionne has left
[07:21:49] <wiesand> And Andrew just did it :)
[07:21:59] --- Marc Dionne has become available
[07:22:14] <wiesand> So, on to the last topic on the agenda: "1.6.8 release"
[07:22:47] <wiesand> Things (state of review) look much better now. Thanks everyone.
[07:23:42] <wiesand> What's left should be straightforward or not urgent.
[07:24:03] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I want to pull up 10081, if I may.
[07:24:03] <wiesand> Any blockers for pre1?
[07:24:13] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> (not a blocker)
[07:24:59] <wiesand> Seems really simple.
[07:25:29] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> It is simple, yes.  (It broke a script I was trying to use.  Arguably,
the script is broken, but.)
[07:25:43] <wiesand> So unless someone has a strong opinion on this being inappropriate for stable, fine with me.
[07:26:01] <dbrashear> do it
[07:26:48] <wiesand> The 10832/3/4 stack is based on something not yet on master.
[07:27:11] <wiesand> So that has no chance to go in.
[07:28:25] <wiesand> 10757 is blocked on 10857 (on master)
[07:29:09] <wiesand> "interrup rx calls" is good to go. Will need a rebase, I guess. I'll take care of them later.
[07:30:54] <wiesand> I'll also look at brl-per-file later on. Review should suffice.
[07:31:46] <wiesand> So, pre1 before EAKC seems feasible.
[07:31:57] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Anything you still want more review for?
[07:33:01] <wiesand> I'll send invitations today if there's anything left.
[07:33:12] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Okay, thanks.
[07:33:33] <wiesand> Things have been rather dynamic in the past 20 hours :)
[07:34:11] <wiesand> 10855 (on master), but I don't expect problems.
[07:34:33] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I +1'd 10855 already :)
[07:35:34] <wiesand> Sorry. 10885.
[07:36:00] <wiesand> Incidentally, that was the information I was missing when I looked for it ;-)
[07:37:02] <meffie> oh, hmm, this is better :)
[07:37:57] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> That jives better with my memory of what I saw when I was reading all
of src/bozo
[07:38:14] <wiesand> Jeffrey objected rather strongly to the bozo-catchup ones removing dead or unused code. I think I won't merge those before having talked to him at EAKC at least ;-)
[07:38:33] <wiesand> Yes, I actually tested it too.
[07:38:58] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Which reminds me, I should ping Chas to see what I/anyone should be
doing about pthread-bos.
[07:39:36] <wiesand> Hmm, I hear the "not for stable" ...
[07:40:24] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> (pthread-bos is not for -stable, but has been sitting in gerrit for
master untouched fo ~4 months)
[07:41:01] <wiesand> Ok. I was fearing I'd gotten that wrong.
[07:41:17] <meffie> i assumed it's for 1.9
[07:41:46] <wiesand> Whenever that may happen...
[07:42:33] <wiesand> Andrew, are you sure it should be "-mode <0 | 1>"? I found several examples like "(0 | 1 | 2)".
[07:44:13] <deason> I may be wrong, what are the other examples?
[07:44:22] <Marc Dionne> by my reading, -mode 0 should not work (?)
[07:44:37] <wiesand> butc is one example
[07:44:50] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> "butc is maybe not the best example, for anything"
[07:45:01] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Marc: -mode 0 will not effect a transition from mode 1 to mode 0.
[07:45:25] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Marc: but if the running code is in mode 0 and the file configuration
says mode 1, it should change the file configuration.
[07:45:26] <wiesand> It won't put the server in  unrestricted mode. But it will change the restrictmode entry to 0 in BosConfig. If it succeeds.
[07:45:46] <Marc Dionne> i don't see how it would change the configuration either, but i may be reading wrong
[07:46:28] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> WriteBozoFile(0) in SBOZO_SetRestrictedMode()/
[07:46:40] <wiesand> bos_setauth(8)
[07:47:07] <Marc Dionne> yes but above there's: if (bozo_isrestricted) {     return BZACCESS;    }

[07:47:25] <deason> SIGFPE turns bozo_isrestricted off in memory
[07:48:18] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> The value of the variable in memory is not changing, here, but
WriteBozoFile is getting called.
[07:48:43] <wiesand> It actually works with the current HEAD of 1.6.x. I tried.
[07:51:16] <wiesand> Ben: did the 10831 question go to the other room deliberately?
[07:51:28] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Yes, since it's for master at the moment.
[07:51:30] <Marc Dionne> ok, the SIGFPE part is what i was missing
[07:51:37] <wiesand> Ok.
[07:52:03] <wiesand> Since Jason fixed buildbot, I think we're through today's agenda.
[07:52:13] <wiesand> Anything else to discuss?
[07:53:15] <deason> I'd like to hear something about 1.6.7 but I don't think I'm going to
[07:53:30] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I assume that Jeffrey will talk about 1.9 when he's ready, so that's
not really my agenda item to add.
[07:54:05] <wiesand> 1.6.7: asked about it, noone spoke up.
[07:54:20] <wiesand> 1.9: was planned for "around last Xmas", no news since...
[07:54:41] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Life happens.
[07:55:08] <dbrashear> 2.0 was planned for like 2007.
[07:55:18] <wiesand> Yeah :-)
[07:56:00] <wiesand> I bet we'll have lots of great plans after EAKC ;-)
[07:56:40] <dbrashear> … to take much longer than planned to finish.
[07:57:07] <wiesand> ... which is perfectly normal for anything serious.
[07:58:01] <wiesand> But there's hope for a timely 1.6.8 now. Thanks again.
[07:58:36] <wiesand> Last call for bringing up another topic, or I'll go enjoy the great spring day here...
[07:58:52] <meffie> snow expected here.
[07:59:17] <wiesand> I sympathize.
[07:59:36] <meffie> heh, thanks, have a good evening.
[07:59:37] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Rain->snow overnight.  Yesterday was nice, though.
[08:00:18] <wiesand> Ok, that's it for today. Thanks a lot everyone!
[08:00:38] --- wiesand has left
[08:01:30] --- deason has left
[08:01:37] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Thanks!
[08:06:26] --- meffie has left
[08:15:25] --- deason has become available
[09:14:26] --- dbrashear has left: Disconnected
[10:10:14] --- dbrashear has become available
[10:46:33] --- dbrashear has left: Disconnected
[11:03:02] --- dbrashear has become available
[12:37:41] --- dbrashear has left: Disconnected
[13:03:22] --- dbrashear has become available
[15:32:51] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available
[16:37:21] --- Simon Wilkinson has left
[18:04:43] --- deason has left