Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1198762

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

From	Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.kernel
Subject	Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets
Date	2024-05-26 18:10 +0200
Message-ID	<IIoBz-g0dY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <H5AeZ-3Dvv-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <IGB9U-eTji-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

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Sun, 26 May 2024 13:39:07 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso
<carnil@debian.org> 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).

Very nice, thank you!

In the meanwhile, I found a way to reliably detecting this and
gracefully skipping it in systemd, so debci is now fixed. However, it
still results in PrivateNetwork= being quietly disabled, so the
backport is still very much needed, as it is a useful security feature.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

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

Thread

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

csiph-web