Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

build(deps): bump openssl from 0.10.68 to 0.10.70 in the cargo group across 1 directory #1828

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2025

Conversation

dependabot[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@dependabot dependabot bot commented on behalf of github Feb 3, 2025

Bumps the cargo group with 1 update in the / directory: openssl.

Updates openssl from 0.10.68 to 0.10.70

Release notes

Sourced from openssl's releases.

openssl v0.10.70

What's Changed

Full Changelog: sfackler/rust-openssl@openssl-v0.10.69...openssl-v0.10.70

openssl v0.10.69

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: sfackler/rust-openssl@openssl-v0.10.68...openssl-v0.10.69

Commits
  • a4d399b Release openssl v0.10.70
  • c9a33e2 Release openssl-sys v0.9.105
  • f014afb Merge pull request #2360 from sfackler/fix-alpn-lifetimes
  • 8e6e30b Fix lifetimes in ssl::select_next_proto
  • 1aff280 Merge pull request #2358 from alex/expose-dlts
  • 16ca5b2 Merge pull request #2359 from sfackler/alex-patch-1
  • 4c9fbb0 Test against 3.4.0 final release
  • 5ecb31d Update openssl/src/ssl/mod.rs
  • 4830f5b Expose SslMethod::{dtls_client,dtls_server}
  • bab03c4 Merge pull request #2356 from botovq/rm-ec-method
  • Additional commits viewable in compare view

Dependabot compatibility score

Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting @dependabot rebase.


Dependabot commands and options

You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:

  • @dependabot rebase will rebase this PR
  • @dependabot recreate will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it
  • @dependabot merge will merge this PR after your CI passes on it
  • @dependabot squash and merge will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it
  • @dependabot cancel merge will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging
  • @dependabot reopen will reopen this PR if it is closed
  • @dependabot close will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually
  • @dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions will show all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
  • @dependabot ignore <dependency name> major version will close this group update PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for the specific dependency's major version (unless you unignore this specific dependency's major version or upgrade to it yourself)
  • @dependabot ignore <dependency name> minor version will close this group update PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for the specific dependency's minor version (unless you unignore this specific dependency's minor version or upgrade to it yourself)
  • @dependabot ignore <dependency name> will close this group update PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for the specific dependency (unless you unignore this specific dependency or upgrade to it yourself)
  • @dependabot unignore <dependency name> will remove all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
  • @dependabot unignore <dependency name> <ignore condition> will remove the ignore condition of the specified dependency and ignore conditions
    You can disable automated security fix PRs for this repo from the Security Alerts page.

@dependabot dependabot bot added dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file rust Pull requests that update Rust code labels Feb 3, 2025
Copy link
Member

@EliahKagan EliahKagan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I expect that rerunning the jobs that did not pass (the failed job, the job that was canceled due to the failing job, and the job that depends on them) will cause them to pass.

Oddly, it also failed in my fork (EliahKagan#9), where I also have Dependabot PRs enabled under the same conditions as here, but just for the purpose of investigating oddities like this (I don't merge them to my fork, instead always synchronizing it with this upstream repository). It looks like the failures in both places were different, though both Docker-related.

If this continues happening, it may be worth trying changing the ARM runner from ubuntu-24.04-arm to ubuntu-22.04-arm for the 32-bit containerized job as well (I deliberately didn't do that in #1802).

Edit: Since another PR has been merged, commenting @dependabot rebase (as there), to have the bot rebase this onto the updated main and force push, should also run all CI jobs again.

@Byron
Copy link
Member

Byron commented Feb 4, 2025

@dependabot rebase

@Byron Byron enabled auto-merge February 4, 2025 08:03
Bumps the cargo group with 1 update in the / directory: [openssl](https://github.com/sfackler/rust-openssl).


Updates `openssl` from 0.10.68 to 0.10.70
- [Release notes](https://github.com/sfackler/rust-openssl/releases)
- [Commits](sfackler/rust-openssl@openssl-v0.10.68...openssl-v0.10.70)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: openssl
  dependency-type: indirect
  dependency-group: cargo
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
@dependabot dependabot bot force-pushed the dependabot/cargo/cargo-2c68f0befb branch from 36e72b4 to 029124e Compare February 4, 2025 08:04
@Byron
Copy link
Member

Byron commented Feb 4, 2025

It would definitely be good to get the ARM jobs to be stable - from my point of view they fail a lot and have become quite an inconvenience.

@Byron Byron merged commit dacc4b5 into main Feb 4, 2025
20 checks passed
@dependabot dependabot bot deleted the dependabot/cargo/cargo-2c68f0befb branch February 4, 2025 08:19
@EliahKagan
Copy link
Member

EliahKagan commented Feb 4, 2025

It would definitely be good to get the ARM jobs to be stable - from my point of view they fail a lot and have become quite an inconvenience.

Is this still the case since #1802? And do you know if the test-32bit (arm32v7) job is the one that's been repeatedly failing (whether before or after #1802)?

I know I've seen the test-32bit (arm32v7) job fail at least a couple other times with errors relating to Docker, so I'll go ahead and open a PR to change it from ubuntu-24.04-arm to ubuntu-22.04-arm right now, in the hope that it will help with that.

Edit: I've opened #1830 for this.

EliahKagan added a commit to EliahKagan/gitoxide that referenced this pull request Feb 4, 2025
From ubuntu-24.04-arm, which seems to be having some problems
there too, as discussed in GitoxideLabs#1828.

This can be viewed as a follow-up on GitoxideLabs#1802, which made the
analogous change for the non-containerized test job only.
@Byron
Copy link
Member

Byron commented Feb 5, 2025

Is this still the case since #1802? And do you know if the test-32bit (arm32v7) job is the one that's been repeatedly failing (whether before or after #1802)?

Unfortunately I never distinguished and only booked it under ARM-job, so overall I felt like they were flaky.
It's something I have trouble understanding as usually GH runners are stable, how can ARM hardware be any different.

@EliahKagan
Copy link
Member

EliahKagan commented Feb 5, 2025

It's something I have trouble understanding as usually GH runners are stable

One possible factor is that the Linux ARM runners are not stable: they are in public preview. (I mentioned, but did not emphasize, this in #1777.)

how can ARM hardware be any different.

I think the problem may be with the runner infrastructure, runner images, or those might actually be correct, and the problem could be due to compiler or linker bugs arising from assumptions that hold on some but not all ARM64 chips.

We don't seem to get failures of 32-bit ARM code in the Docker images, regardless of which ARM64 runner we use. The only step that runs inside the container that I have ever observed wrongly to fail on these runners is actions/checkout, which fails rarely, and furthermore which is actually running 64-bit Node.js and 64-bit libraries (at least libc and libstdc++) to run it.

None of the problems I've observed with ARM runners have occurred with the ubuntu-22.04-arm runners, only the ubuntu-24.04-arm runner. This is mostly what people have observed in rust-lang/rust#135867 as well, with one exception, but it looks like that exception might be an altogether different problem. So hopefully they have all gone away now both jobs that we had using ubuntu-24.04-arm have been switched to ubuntu-22.04-arm. The problems also seem to occur far more with some versions of the Rust toolchain, which I think suggests there may be a Rust or C toolchain bug involved somehow.

Nothing like this has been happening on the macos-latest jobs, which have been running on Apple Silicon ARM64 runners for a while now, so that's another reason to think ARM is not the problem per se.

If the extra time and effort to deal with failures outweighs the benefit of using the ARM Linux runners on CI at this time, then I have no objection to removing them (and bringing back the old test-32bit-cross job, which didn't have these problems but also did not test very much). I would be happy to make that change, and we could always try them again later. However, my hope is that the problems may have gone away now that we are not using the ubuntu-24.04-arm runner image for any jobs here anymore.

Edit: When merging #1830 to main, the merge commit had a CI failure in a test-32bit job, but it was the x86 one, not the changed ARM one. I've opened #1831 to ask about it.

@Byron
Copy link
Member

Byron commented Feb 6, 2025

However, my hope is that the problems may have gone away now that we are not using the ubuntu-24.04-arm runner image for any jobs here anymore.

I'd hope so too, and am quite optimistic :).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file rust Pull requests that update Rust code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants