[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#24108: guix make tests failure
|
From: |
Dylan Jeffers |
|
Subject: |
bug#24108: guix make tests failure |
|
Date: |
Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:43:12 -0700 |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:07:25 +0200
address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> address@hidden skribis:
>
> > test-name: substitute query, alternating URLs
> > location: /home/sapientech/Dev/guix/guix_wip/tests/store.scm:456
>
> [...]
>
> > substitute: guix/ui.scm:1209:6: In procedure run-guix-command:
> > substitute: guix/ui.scm:1209:6: unmatched line "<html><head><meta
> > http-equiv=\"refresh\"
> > content=\"0;url=http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL=http://does-not-exist/nix-cache-info&bc=\"/></head><body><script
> > type=\"text/javascript\">window.location=\"http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL=\"+escape(window.location)+\"&r=\"+escape(document.referrer)+\"&bc=\";</script></body></html>"
> >
>
> It seems there’s a DNS hijacker in place where domain names such as
> “does-not-exist” (used in this and other tests) are resolved to some
> ISP-specific host or something. This explains this and more of the
> other test failures you are seeing; this is unsupported.
>
> > test-name: clone
> > location: /home/sapientech/Dev/guix/guix_wip/tests/syscalls.scm:109
> > source:
> > + (test-assert
> > + "clone"
> > + (match (clone (logior CLONE_NEWUSER SIGCHLD))
> > + (0 (primitive-exit 42))
> > + (pid (and (not (equal?
> > + (readlink (user-namespace pid))
> > + (readlink (user-namespace (getpid)))))
> > + (match (waitpid pid)
> > + ((_ . status) (= 42 (status:exit-val
> > status)))))))) actual-value: #f
> > actual-error:
> > + (system-error
> > + "clone"
> > + "~d: ~A"
> > + (268435473 "Operation not permitted")
> > + (1))
> > result: FAIL
>
> What does “uname -srv” report on this machine? It seems this kernel
> does not support namespaces.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
Hi Ludo,
Thanks for getting back so quick.
Output of uname -srv: Linux 4.6.4-gnu-201607192040-1-grsec #1 SMP
PREEMPT Wed Jul 20 15:37:34 UYT 2016
It is a security enhanced kernel, so that may be the issue. Let me know
if there is a workaround for this kernel, or whether i should fall-back
to an lts, or standard kernel.
Best,
Dylan