© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
I put some more thought on the possibility of SRUing this to Bionic and Focal, and my conclusion is that it's probably not a good idea to attempt a SRU. The rationale is:
1. This doesn't clearly fit into the SRU requirements [1], as we're not fixing a bug, but enabling a new feature. I agree it's a fairly important security features, and it may fit under the "we sometimes want to introduce new features" case, however I'm not *really* sure [2] is a totally safe change, as it touches the currently used code path.
2. Now we SRU support for IMDSv2. Then, for example, how long before before we also want support for the "new" ec2metadata fields [3]?
I understand the clouds are a moving target, and maybe cloud-utils should be granted a SRU exception, like cloud-init has.
Another solution consists in publishing the newer versions of cloud-utils to the -backports pockets (bionic-backports and focal-backports in this case). This is easy to do and will enable users to use the new features when needed, even if without the guarantees given by the SRU process [1].
Any opinion for or against proceeding with backports is welcome!
[1] https:/
[2] https:/
[3] https:/