#729 [NetworkManager] Connection to wireless network fails without explanation when other end does not support secure renegotiation | rhbz#2072070
Closed by blockerbot. Opened by blockerbot.

Bug details: ** https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072070 **
Information from BlockerBugs App:
2072070

Current vote summary

Commented but haven't voted yet: kparal, bcotton, nielsenb, frantisekz

The votes have been last counted at 2022-04-28 13:14 UTC and the last processed comment was #comment-794686

To learn how to vote, see:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review
A quick example: BetaBlocker +1 (where the tracker name is one of BetaBlocker/FinalBlocker/BetaFE/FinalFE/0Day/PreviousRelease and the vote is one of +1/0/-1)


I have rethought this:

FinalFE -1
FinalBlocker +1

The issue prevents users from connecting to a Wi-Fi network and some of these users won't be able to easily do a system update, therefore it would be better to make this issue a blocker to assure it will be fixed before Final.

It can't be a blocker because Silverblue is not a blocking deliverable:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f36/blocking/

It can be a freeze exception, though.

Is it really happening only on Silverblue? The problem sounded quite generic to me, no necessary Silverblue-related (except that the user who reported this issue used Silverblue).

A good catch, @asciiwolf . I haven't read it all properly. I put the blocker nomination back.

FinalFE -1
FinalBlocker +1

Note that this doesn't make much sense. Usually you want it to be a blocker, but just in case it's not accepted by a majority vote, you at least want this to be a freeze exception, so I guess you actually want +1 to both.

Thanks, you are right about the FinalBlocker. I am re-adding my nomination:

FinalFE +1

FinalFE +1

(edit to remove my blocker vote since it affects Workstation, too. I'm leaning -1 as it's a specific subset of networking, but I'll wait until Monday's meeting to commit to a vote)

It does appear to affect both Workstation and Silverblue.

So this feels like an expected side effect of changing a crypto library, but neither the change proposal or the migration guide mention it. You can find it in the man page (search "SSL_OP_ALLOW_UNSAFE_LEGACY_RENEGOTIATION"). It feels to be like something we shouldn't be blanket allowing, but it's definitely a common bugs candidate?

FinalFE -1
FinalBlocker -1

AGREED RejectedFinalBlocker Decided on meeting https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2022-04-11/f36-blocker-review.2022-04-11-16.00.log.txt

The following votes have been closed:

AGREED RejectedFinalFE Decided on meeting https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2022-04-11/f36-blocker-review.2022-04-11-16.00.log.txt

The following votes have been closed:

Resetting the votes based on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072070#c25

REVOTE FinalBlocker
REVOTE FinalFreezeException

I somehow feel this is the most serious bug we are having at the moment, because it really can affect users in a nasty way, much nastier than some Contacts issues. According to the comments, we could fix it downstream correctly, rather than rely on users fixing it for themselves, so I would support

FinalBlocker +1
FinalFreezeException +1

in case we do not block.

FinalBlocker +1
FinalFreezeException +1

Metadata Update from @blockerbot:
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

Release F36 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.

Log in to comment on this ticket.

Metadata