[Bug 1938585] Re: sysctl.d file is misnamed and unneeded

[Launchpad Bug Tracker]

This bug was fixed in the package procps - 2:3.3.17-5ubuntu3

---------------
procps (2:3.3.17-5ubuntu3) impish; urgency=medium

  * Remove /usr/lib/sysctl.d/protect-links.conf (LP: #1938585)

 -- Dan Streetman <ddstreet at canonical.com>  Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:17:48
-0400

** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Impish)
       Status: In Progress => Fix Released

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to procps in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1938585

Title:
  sysctl.d file is misnamed and unneeded

Status in procps package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in procps source package in Bionic:
  Invalid
Status in procps source package in Focal:
  Invalid
Status in procps source package in Hirsute:
  Won't Fix
Status in procps source package in Impish:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  [impact]

  the sysctl.d file /usr/lib/sysctl.d/protect-links.conf is misnamed,
  due to lacking the expected leading number to order it. This results
  in it being evaluated after all other number-prefixed conf files,
  effectively overriding any conflicting configuration in the other
  files, including any admin-provided files in /etc/sysctl.d.

  Additionally, this file should not be included at all, as (unlike
  Debian) Ubuntu assumes systemd will always be installed, thus the
  sysctl settings from this file will be provided by the systemd-
  provided sysctl config files.

  [test case]

  create a file, e.g. /etc/sysctl.d/99-test.conf, with any config that
  also exists in /usr/lib/sysctl.d/protect-links.conf but with a
  different setting, and reboot, then check which value was used.

  [regression potential]

  any regression would likely result in incorrect or unexpected values
  for the sysctls contained in this conf file

  [scope]

  this is needed in f and later

  this file is not present in b

  however, see other info

  [other info]

  while this bug exists in f and later, it's also trivial to work around
  it (though not obvious) by renaming the manual configuration file,
  e.g. instead of using /etc/sysctl.d/99-custom.conf a local admin
  should instead use /etc/sysctl.d/z-custom.conf so the custom file is
  lexically after 'protect-links.conf'.

  Since removing the file entirely could result in a change in behavior,
  if the local admin has explicitly modified the file or taken other
  steps, and since it's trivial (though again, not obvious) to override
  the file lexically, this seems like it should not be SRUed, but only
  fixed in the development release.

  Also, since Debian's policy does allow for systems that do *not* use
  systemd, I'm not opening a bug against Debian to remove the file.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/1938585/+subscriptions