Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #83309

Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets

From Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.kernel
Subject Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets
Date 2024-08-03 21:40 +0200
Message-ID <J7sLD-2urX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (7 earlier) <IGB9U-eTji-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <H5AeZ-3Dvv-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <IIkxX-fXtb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <H5AeZ-3Dvv-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <IIkxX-fXtb-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hi John,

On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 01:39:07PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> For those watching this bug: John has prepared backports in his tree,
> with both approaches:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jj/linux-apparmor.git/log/?h=debian-two-patch-1780227
> 
> and
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jj/linux-apparmor.git/log/?h=debian-backport-1780227
> 
> (but with the open question which one will be submitted for stable.
> >From upstream stable point of view probably the two patch backport
> approach would be the preferred one).

We still have tis issue open for 6.1.y upstream TTBOMK. If you are
confident as maintainer with any of the two approaches, would it be
possible to submit them for stable? If the preferred one get then
accepted and queued, we might already cherry-pick the solution for us,
but at this point we can wait for the respective 6.1.y stable version
which will include the fix.

Regards,
Salvatore

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2023-12-06 23:00 +0100
  Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2023-12-30 16:50 +0100
    Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-01-27 10:30 +0100
    Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2024-05-21 19:10 +0200
    Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-05-26 13:50 +0200
      Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2024-05-26 18:10 +0200
      Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-08-03 21:40 +0200
        Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-11-29 22:20 +0100
          Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-03-22 20:00 +0100
            Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-06-14 22:10 +0200

csiph-web