Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    linux.debian.bugs.dist    |    Ohh some weird Debian bug report thing    |    28,835 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 27,024 of 28,835    |
|    intrigeri to All    |
|    Bug#1121917: apparmor: Kernel version ou    |
|    10 Feb 26 09:30:02    |
      From: intrigeri@debian.org              Hi,              Thanks! I'm trying to understand if I can merely wait for 5.0 to be       stable, or if this bug deserves backporting the upstream fixes       earlier. For this I have a few questions for you inline below:              C. W. (2026-02-09):       > To make it short, good news: The bug still exists with the latest sid       packages,       > but Mr. Johansens upstream commits/merges over the last few weeks fixes it.       As       > there is a v5.0.0-alpha6 around, probably we'll see a new release soon, and       > putting that into sid will resolve everything.              Do you have a pointer to these upstream parser fixes?              > As I found some time on the weekend to narrow it down, just to notice the fix       > later: For the record, the actual main bug was in userland apparmor_parser,       but       > happens only if the kernel apparmorfs exposes       > /sys/kernel/security/apparmor/features/policy/permstable32_version > 1, which       > happens with kernel commit 2e12c5f060176ede209673e4f63ea5d0e3c5814c . Current       > stable kernel doesn't do this yet.              FTR, I see Linux 6.17 and newer have this commit. I understand this is       why testing & sid are currently affected. It's good to know that       stable (Trixie) is not. But stable-backports has newer kernels so       depending on the answer to my next question, we might want to consider       getting the fix into Trixie.              > If this is the case, the parser compiles       > some types of rulesets wrong, in a way that make the kernel checks on       importing       > fail (in policy_unpack.c, function unpack_perms_table, the AA_ARRAYEND       part). I       > can upload some example file if someone still wants one, but as mentioned,       > there's a fix already.              Are you aware of any AppArmor policy shipped in Debian that triggers       this bug? Or did you notice this bug only with third-party policy so far?              Cheers,       --       intrigeri              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca