IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Commit 428a9f6f1d freed u->pids which is
problematic since the references to this unit in m->watch_pids were no more
removed when the unit was freed.
This patch makes sure to clean all this refs up before freeing u->pids by
calling unit_unwatch_all_pids().
This fixes the following warning:
```
parse_hwdb.py:120: UserWarning: warn_ungrouped_named_tokens_in_collection: setting results name 'SETTINGS*' on And expression collides with 'HZ' on contained expression
dpi_setting = (Optional('*')('DEFAULT') + INTEGER('DPI') + Suppress('@') + INTEGER('HZ'))('SETTINGS*')
```
Not sure about for the mount_matrix, but LGTM.com warns in that line,
and, adding Group() does not change the parse result.
This reverts the gist of da1921a5c3 and
0d9fca76bb (for ppc).
Quoting #17559:
> libseccomp 2.5 added socket syscall multiplexing on ppc64(el):
> https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/pull/229
>
> Like with i386, s390 and s390x this breaks socket argument filtering, so
> RestrictAddressFamilies doesn't work.
>
> This causes the unit test to fail:
> /* test_restrict_address_families */
> Operating on architecture: ppc
> Failed to install socket family rules for architecture ppc, skipping: Operation canceled
> Operating on architecture: ppc64
> Failed to add socket() rule for architecture ppc64, skipping: Invalid argument
> Operating on architecture: ppc64-le
> Failed to add socket() rule for architecture ppc64-le, skipping: Invalid argument
> Assertion 'fd < 0' failed at src/test/test-seccomp.c:424, function test_restrict_address_families(). Aborting.
>
> The socket filters can't be added so `socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);` still
> works, triggering the assertion.
Fixes#17559.
Only some small changes, because we updated recently. As usual, it seems that there are mostly
additions with a smaller amount of corrections, no big removals.
This test assumes capability_list_length() is an invalid cap number,
but that isn't true if the running kernel supports more caps than we were
compiled with, which results in the test failing.
Instead use cap_last_cap() + 1.
If cap_last_cap() is 63, there are no more 'invalid' cap numbers to test with,
so the invalid cap number test part is skipped.
