Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge 1.?] Bug #7771: printing in …

Nachricht löschen

Nachricht beantworten
Autor: intrigeri
Datum:  
To: The Tails public development discussion list
Betreff: Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge 1.?] Bug #7771: printing in unsafe-browser leads to browser hang
Hi,

Kill Your TV wrote (12 Aug 2014 13:50:08 GMT) :
> After reverting 4b6248d0e7a77e78ee23465a1a70c3fdccf3dc5e the hang in
> devel drops back to around 4 seconds, the same behaviour as can be
> seen in 1.1.


Nice catch! I suspect it would be the same if we kept this commit's
change to the OUTPUT chain (that explicitly rejects packets anyway),
and added an explicit reject rule to the INPUT chain for packets as
the loopback interface (both source and destination). Care to
try that?

(I can't, as I cannot reproduce the problem at all here.)

> This being the case I would like to see this change applied (at some
> point) to Tails since it should be a benign change.


Yes, this should be a benign change, and I agree it makes sense.
I want to see it in at some point too. But I'd like to see the root
cause of the much increased hang time fixed as well, so that we're not
1. adding layers over layers of workarounds; 2. exposing ourselves to
other similar regressions caused by the new, stricter IPv6 firewall.

On the other hand, if you don't want to take care of the firewall side
of things, no worries, just tell me. Either I'll take care of it
myself, or I'll ask Jake to rework his stuff a bit :)

>> Any idea why I still see the firewall blocking attempts to talk to
>> CUPS, even with your fix applied? Can you reproduce this?


> It's reproducible here. It always tries to communicate with CUPS via
> IPv6, even with my simple change, only with my change it doesn't block
> the Print window from appearing. According to mozillazine's KB[0], my
> change of setting "print.postscript.cups.enabled" to "false" 'should'
> stop it from trying to access CUPS, so maybe this is a Firefox bug?


Seems like it is. Want to reproduce it with a pristine Firefox, and
then report upstream?

Cheers,
--
intrigeri