server January 2022

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
16 discussions

Proposal: Changes to Fedora Server default partitioning scheme
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '24

13 Dec '24

The following proposal comes out of the discussion at this weeks Server SIG meeting[1] Fedora Server will have: * / (root) will be a minimum of 2 GiB and a maximum of 15 GiB * SWAP will continue to be calculated automatically based on available RAM on the system * All unused space will be assigned to a volume group and available to be assigned to new partitions or extend existing partitions. * Anaconda will continue to handle the appropriate EFI and /boot settings We also discussed during the meeting whether we should have a separate /var partition by default, but the general sense was that we might be better served by developing a mechanism to allow partitions to be split from existing mount points, which would be more flexible going forward. As we did not have quorum in the meeting by the point we got to this proposal, I'm taking it to the list for discussion and votes. For the record, the current behavior of the partitioning scheme is for / to be given up to 50 GiB of space and then any remaining space after that is assigned to a separate /home partition. [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-03-15/serversig.201…

4 8

Federa 35 Server default editor
by Peter Boy 14 Mar '23

14 Mar '23

In Fedora 34 the default editor was nano, for Workstation and also for Server. In my latest default F35 Server installation I noticed vim-default-editor was installed. Did some good soul take pity and bring vim back to us or did something go wrong with my installation? Best Peter

8 25

Cockpit file-sharing update
by Matthew Miller 18 Feb '22

18 Feb '22

I think this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2030814 is basically ready to go — it just needs someone with more time than Stephen or I to take it on and get the package through review and built. I actually think it'd be a really nice feature to tout for Fedora Server Edition 36 — maybe something someone would like to make a self-contained change before that deadline? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

4 6

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server WG
by pboy＠fedoraproject.org 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server WG on 2022-02-02 from 17:00:00 to 18:00:00 UTC At fedora-meeting(a)irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Standing meeting of the Fedora Server Working Group More information available at: [https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting](https://pagure.io/fedora-se… Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10162/

1 0

CVE-2021-4034: why is pkexec still a thing?
by Adam Williamson 29 Jan '22

29 Jan '22

Hi folks! For anyone who hasn't seen it yet - there's quite a kerfuffle today about a major security issue in polkit: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/01/a-bug-lurking-for-12… turns out that ever since it was invented, `pkexec` has had a bug allowing for local root privilege escalation. Which is...bad. The issue and some of the comments around it prompted me to wonder - why is `pkexec` still a thing? Particularly, why is it still a thing we are shipping by default in just about every Fedora install? My best recollection is that pkexec was kinda a kludge to allow us to get rid of consolehelper: some apps weren't getting rewritten to the Right Way of doing things under policykit, they still just wanted to have the entire app run as root, and pkexec was a way to make that happen. But that was then, and this is now. Does anything in Workstation use pkexec? Does anything in KDE use it? I'm pretty sure (at least I really hope!) nothing in Server uses it. I don't think any of our documentation recommends its use for interactive execution of things as root (these days we tend to just specify `sudo` for that and assume the install has an admin user). Should we just split it out of the polkit package into a subpackage and stop shipping the subpackage on those editions/spins at least? If there's anything in other desktops still using it, it can grow a dependency on the subpackage... Am I forgetting some other reason we still need it? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

5 5

partitioning, Everything ISO
by Chris Murphy 26 Jan '22

26 Jan '22

cc: anaconda-devel@ From today's Fedora QA minutes https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-01-24/fedora-qa.2022-… 16:20:54 <pboy> I'll test that again, but I'm sure, if you use everything DVD you get the wrong preconfiguration. We had a thread about that on server list. I'm not finding this thread. But Adamw surely knows the history of Everything ISO better than I do. My fuzzy memory is that it's sort of a side effect of how images are made and it's kept around as a catch all. It's the only way to do a netinstall for any of the desktops. The default package set is for a minimal install, a.k.a. Fedora Custom. The idea is to make it straightforward to get a minimum bootable system and then use dnf to build it up from there. Just for context, "Everything ISO" e.g. https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20220124.… This image defines "automatic" partitioning as btrfs. It's intrinsic to the image itself what the partitioning defaults to. It's not a function of the package set, i.e. choosing the Server package set doesn't get you Server's default partitioning. It's a little confusing, but it's working as designed, insofar as it has one. I cc'd Anaconda folks, because I'm not sure exactly where the "autopart" kickstart command gets defined these days. And also whether it's worth the effort to make autopart variable based on what edition or spin is selected in the Everything netinstaller? I'm not sure that it is. -- Chris Murphy

4 6

Re: [Anaconda-devel] Re: partitioning, Everything ISO
by Neal Gompa 25 Jan '22

25 Jan '22

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:47 AM Vendula Poncova <vponcova(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:34 AM Jiri Konecny <jkonecny(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dne 24. 01. 22 v 20:20 Neal Gompa napsal(a): >> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 1:46 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Am 24.01.2022 um 18:42 schrieb Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com>: >> >>> >> >>> cc: anaconda-devel@ >> >>> >> >>> From today's Fedora QA minutes >> >>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-01-24/fedora-qa.2022-… >> >>> >> >>> 16:20:54 <pboy> I'll test that again, but I'm sure, if you use >> >>> everything DVD you get the wrong preconfiguration. We had a thread >> >>> about that on server list. >> >>> >> >>> I'm not finding this thread. But Adamw surely knows the history of >> >>> Everything ISO better than I do. My fuzzy memory is that it's sort of >> >>> a side effect of how images are made and it's kept around as a catch >> >>> all. It's the only way to do a netinstall for any of the desktops. The >> >>> default package set is for a minimal install, a.k.a. Fedora Custom. >> >>> The idea is to make it straightforward to get a minimum bootable >> >>> system and then use dnf to build it up from there. >> >>> >> >>> Just for context, "Everything ISO" e.g. >> >>> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20220124.… >> >>> >> >>> This image defines "automatic" partitioning as btrfs. It's intrinsic >> >>> to the image itself what the partitioning defaults to. It's not a >> >>> function of the package set, i.e. choosing the Server package set >> >>> doesn't get you Server's default partitioning. It's a little >> >>> confusing, but it's working as designed, insofar as it has one. >> >>> >> >>> I cc'd Anaconda folks, because I'm not sure exactly where the >> >>> "autopart" kickstart command gets defined these days. And also whether >> >>> it's worth the effort to make autopart variable based on what edition >> >>> or spin is selected in the Everything netinstaller? I'm not sure that >> >>> it is. >> >> Chris, >> >> >> >> if I remember correctly, wasn’t it you who informed me (about a year ago in the context of F32/33) that booting from everything DVD and select „Fedora Server“ does not result in an identical installation as booting from Server DVD and selecting „Fedora Server“? (when I wondered about the installation on a rented remote hardware where only „Everything“ was available). >> >> >> > That's a different case. That's referring to the package collection. >> > The Everything ISO has the base Fedora "profile" that most variants >> > use (which uses Btrfs). But it also doesn't select Fedora Server by >> > default and is explicitly designed "for experts", The Fedora Server >> > netinstall ISO uses the Fedora Server "profile" and will use the >> > Fedora Server settings by default, including using LVM+XFS. >> > >> > Think of the Everything ISO as something that an Arch convert would >> > use, while the Fedora Server netinstall ISO would be something that a >> > sysadmin doing server deployments from a central repo mirror would >> > use. >> > >> Hi, >> >> Yes, it's as Neal said. Basically Anaconda is now using configuration >> profiles which are matching the /etc/os-release values. >> >> https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/profile.d/fedora-s… >> >> If there is a match we will choose that configuration file. Not sure >> what the Everything ISO has there. However, it's possible that it is >> matching the base Fedora configuration file: >> >> https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/profile.d/fedora.c… >> where you can find the default_scheme: >> https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/profile.d/fedora.c… >> > > Btw. the issue with changing profiles based on the packages selection was already discussed here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002668 > > I still think that the best approach would be to extend the boot menu of the Everything ISO as mentioned at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002668#c1 > > The Anaconda profiles are documented here: https://anaconda-installer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration-files.htm… > Would it be possible to add the ability to define partitioning schemes per scheme? For example, with Btrfs on Fedora Server, having a subvolume for /home is sensible, but with the other arrangements that divide up space, probably not. For RPM-OSTree systems (Kinoite/Silverblue), we'd like to have a /var subvolume in addition to /home, but not when plain partitions or LVM is used. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

1 0

Re: Current configuration of /etc/resolve.conf
by Chris Murphy 25 Jan '22

25 Jan '22

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:50 PM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 13 2021 at 05:45:45 PM -0500, Chris Murphy > <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote: > > But I don't know what's > > responsible for creating the /etc/resolv.conf symlink in the two > > installation methods. > > Until three days ago, the answer was systemd package scriptlet. There's > absolutely nothing Server-specific there. Maybe just bad script > ordering luck? > > There is some good news: the "Enforce authselect configuration > consistency" change is obsoleting all of the current fragile scriptlets > and should make everything way more robust. See e.g.: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/c/0898a89444bcba31247822cdc76032… > > So I would not invest too much effort into debugging this except in > rawhide, because everything is very different in rawhide. It should be > a lot more robust and I wouldn't be surprised if it fixes this issue. > Filed this against distribution and I'll propose it as a Fedora 36 beta blocker so we don't forget about it. -- Chris Murphy

1 2

Short info about this week's IRC meeting (2022-01-19)
by Peter Boy 22 Jan '22

22 Jan '22

Again, for everyone's convenience, a brief summary of our IRC meeting right here. For greater details see meetbot Summary: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora-server/fedora-server.2022-01… Full log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora-server/fedora-server.2022-01… Topics discussed: === Follow up actions === #info Nothing new to report After a short discussion #action: pboy, StephenGallagher, salimma prepare a late change proposal. === Current status of Fedora Server User Docs Update === Details: https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/69 Review for various article that already found a reviewer are in the works. 4 articles still need a reviewer. Goal is to publish the already assigned articles in the next 14 days. === Current changeset F36, possible specific impacts on Server === The list is not yet fixed. Currently foreseeable, the planned omission of the ifcfg based configuration and the announced Migration Guide will need special attention (and testing). === Review current Fedora Server Technical Specification === Special attention was paid to the question of the role that services rsp. Linux system roles could take in the future as successors to server roles. Discussion to be continued.

1 0

A gentle reminder: Server IRC meeting will start in about 1 hour at 17:00 UTC
by Peter Boy 20 Jan '22

20 Jan '22

Just in case someone missed it: == Agenda == see: https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting 1. Follow up actions 2. Current status of Fedora Server User Docs Update https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/69 Goal: determine and planing actions needed 3. Current changeset F36, possible specific impacts on Server https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/72 Goal: determine changes which may specifically impact Server and may require special testing or other attention during beta 4. Review current Fedora Server Technical Specification https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/58 Goal: Update Technical Specification 5. Open floor

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server January 2022