#588 [tpm2-tss] tpm2_createprimary fails | rhbz#2008179
Closed 5 days ago by blockerbot. Opened 4 months ago by blockerbot.

Bug details: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2008179
Information from BlockerBugs App:
2008179

Current vote summary

Commented but haven't voted yet: coremodule

The votes have been last counted at 2022-02-07 20:59 UTC and the last processed comment was #comment-779729

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)


BetaBlocker -1
BetaFE -1

There's no specific criterion I can find that this violates, so I don't think this warrants being a blocker. However, the subsystems that it touches are so important that I also would not want to accept a change after the Freeze date (2022-02-22), for fear of causing more problems.

I don't see any specific TPM criteria. Maybe we should have one?

BetaBlocker -1

BetaBlocker -1
FinalBlocker +1

This appears to violate the Automatic partition decrpytion criterion, but that's a Final criterion. I don't see anything applicable in Basic or Beta.

AGREED RejectedBetaBlocker
AGREED AcceptedBetaFE

Discussed during the 2022-02-07 blocker review meeting: [0]

The decision to classify this bug as a "RejectedBlocker (Beta)" and an "AcceptedFreezeException (Beta)" was made as this does not appear to violate any Beta criteria, but it is useful functionality and would be a showstopper for anyone using it on F35 who upgrades to F36, so accepted as an FE issue.

[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2022-02-07/f36-blocker-review.2022-02-07-17.00.txt

The following votes have been closed:

There's no specific criterion I can find that this violates, so I don't think this warrants being a blocker. However, the subsystems that it touches are so important that I also would not want to accept a change after the Freeze date (2022-02-22), for fear of causing more problems.

It would stop IoT edition with an encrypted hard disk from booting to userspace if the key is stored in a TPM, does non booting count as a blocker?

There's no specific criterion I can find that this violates, so I don't think this warrants being a blocker. However, the subsystems that it touches are so important that I also would not want to accept a change after the Freeze date (2022-02-22), for fear of causing more problems.

It would stop IoT edition with an encrypted hard disk from booting to userspace if the key is stored in a TPM, does non booting count as a blocker?

As noted above, that's a Final criterion, not Beta. I'm absolutely in favor of calling this a Final blocker.

There's no specific criterion I can find that this violates, so I don't think this warrants being a blocker. However, the subsystems that it touches are so important that I also would not want to accept a change after the Freeze date (2022-02-22), for fear of causing more problems.

It would stop IoT edition with an encrypted hard disk from booting to userspace if the key is stored in a TPM, does non booting count as a blocker?

As noted above, that's a Final criterion, not Beta. I'm absolutely in favor of calling this a Final blocker.

I think it should be Beta, an unusable system should block at all points

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

5 days ago

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

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata