Bump supported fedora version to 41

[rocodes]

Status

Ready for review

Description of Changes

Closes #1217
Bump supported fedora version to fedora-41

Testing

• CI [Clean install case]
• Visual review
• Manual upgrade testing (below)

Upgrade testing

• Start from f40-provisioned sdw setup with a disposable sys-usb vm (detault/normal config).
• Build rpm from the tip of this package, then run apply.
• Apply completes successfully
• Fedora based sys vms used f41 based template
• sys-usb contains autoattach config (autoattach rules symlinked into /etc/udev/rules.d)

Deployment

Any special considerations for deployment? Consider both:

1. Upgrading existing pilot instances
2. New installs

Checklist

If you have made changes to the provisioning logic

• All tests (make test) pass in dom0

If you have added or removed files

• I have updated MANIFEST.in and rpm-build/SPECS/securedrop-workstation-dom0-config.spec

If documentation is required

• I have opened a PR in the docs repo for these changes, or will do so later
• I would appreciate help with the documentation

[rocodes]

(CI failure due to whonix clock randomization issue (see #1206). It looks like it's failing for whonix-gateway-17, which is a template, so I thought it shouldn't have the clock randomization enabled at all. Will investigate separately and will retrigger ci here hoping for a successful run.)

[cfm]

@rocodes, does this need a test plan in addition to CI? I noticed it just because #1217 is marked as ready for review.

[rocodes]

Ah sorry, I was indeed missing a test plan - have updated!

[deeplow]

Works as expected. Make test fails due to unnapplied Fedora 41 template updates, but this is something that our updater already covers, so it is fine.

[deeplow]

Ready to merge at your convenience @rocodes.

[deeplow]

Also, I know it's intended, but we're creating fedora-41-dvm instead of modifying default-dvm I'm guessing this way there are less side-effects. I wonder if we should revise this decision at some point.

[rocodes]

@deeplow thank you for review :) Will merge shortly.

Re the sd-fedora vm: yes, it's intended that we create a separate one, because we set up the custom autoattach udev rules (for now anyway), and we don't want to do that in the default fedora-dvm, since that could be used in other contexts. But I think you're right that we will be able to revisit it (for example, with 4.3 support with updated devices management options!)

[rocodes]

(@deeplow re #1221 (comment) - still need your official stamp, but once that's done feel free to merge as well)