On 1/27/24 01:21, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Hi John,

On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 04:24:47AM +0000, Mathias Gibbens wrote:
On Sat, 2023-12-30 at 16:44 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
John, did you had a chance to work on this backport for 6.1.y stable
upstream so we could pick it downstream in Debian in one of the next
stable imports? Cherry-picking 1cf26c3d2c4c ("apparmor: fix apparmor
mediating locking non-fs unix sockets") does not work, if not
havinging the work around e2967ede2297 ("apparmor: compute policydb
permission on profile load") AFAICS, so that needs a 6.1.y specific
backport submitted to sta...@vger.kernel.orgĀ ?

I think we could have people from this bug as well providing a
Tested-by when necessary. I'm not feeling confident enough to be able
to provide myself such a patch to sent to stable (and you only giving
an Acked-by/Reviewed-by), so if you can help out here with your
upstream hat on that would be more than appreciated and welcome :)

Thanks a lot for your work!

   I played around with this a bit the past week as well, and came to
the same conclusion as Salvatore did that commits e2967ede2297 and
1cf26c3d2c4c need to be cherry-picked back to the 6.1 stable tree.

   I've attached the two commits rebased onto 6.1.y as patches to this
message. Commit e2967ede2297 needed a little bit of touchup to apply
cleanly, and 1cf26c3d2c4c just needed adjustments for line number
changes. I included some comments at the top of each patch.

   With these two commits cherry-picked on top of the 6.1.69 kernel, I
can boot a bookworm system and successfully start a service within a
container that utilizes `PrivateNetwork=yes`. Rebooting back into an
unpatched vanilla 6.1.69 kernel continues to show the problem.

   While I didn't see any immediate issues (ie, `aa-status` and log
files looked OK), I don't understand the changes in the first commit
well enough to be confident in sending these patches for inclusion in
the upstream stable tree on my own.

Do you had a chance to look at this for 6.1.y upstream?

Asking/Poking since the point release dates are now clear:


if possible I would like to include those fixes, but only if they are
at least queued fror 6.1.y itself to not diverge from upstream.

Otherwise we will wait another round, but which means usually 2 months
for the point release cadence.

I am looking at it right now, I should be done with it today

Reply via email to