[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-10 Thread Alban Crequy
Attached: the compressed apparmor binary cache file that cause the oops. apparmor 2.8.95~2430-0ubuntu5 linux-image-3.13.0-24-generic 3.13.0-24.47 ** Attachment added: ubercache.gz https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1317545/+attachment/4109247/+files/ubercache.gz -- You

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-09 Thread John Johansen
Alban, can you attach your concatted uber cache file? This has worked (not oops) for me with every combination of the cache I throw at it. Alban also note that the parser caching doesn't currently support auto rebuilding, etc of caches with this uber cache yet. Are you interested in beta testing

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-09 Thread John Johansen
Just an update as I did some testing on concated cache timings, on a kernel that supports multiple profile loads so for 100 iterations of profile loading I got 2.8.95 parser, profile set from cache: 0m22.961s 2.8.95 parser, profile set concated: 2m16.653s patched parser, profile set from cache:

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-08 Thread Tyler Hicks
Assigning this to jj and subscribing ubuntu-security, since it is an AppArmor kernel bug, so that it doesn't get lost. ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed = New ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) = John Johansen (jjohansen) -- You received this bug

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-08 Thread Alban Crequy
This kernel oops was produced without patching apparmor or the kernel. But if you are curious, here is a bit more context why I created a concatenated cache: I want to make the boot faster on a system which does not need to check whether the profiles changed. I have a single cache file (named

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-08 Thread John Johansen
Alban, I'd be interested in seeing what you patch to sd_load_buffer() looks like. We have just landed a patch upstream to fix the multiple write problem for 2.8, 29, and dev. There are two things to note about profile loads that have multiple profiles in them. 1. Older kernels don't actually

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-08 Thread Alban Crequy
My patch would not work with older kernel then... But here it is. I believe the line: - bsize = size - (b - buffer); is not correct. In the first iteration of the loop, b==buffer, so bsize==size. So it is sending all the profiles in a single write() syscall. The second iteration

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-08 Thread Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot
** Tags added: patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1317545 Title: AppArmor: general protection fault: [#1] SMP Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu: Confirmed

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-08 Thread John Johansen
The upstream commit that fixes the multiple profile load problem for the parser is commit 2510 on the dev branch or commit 2127 on the 2.8 branch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1317545] Re: AppArmor: general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP

2014-05-08 Thread John Johansen
Right, the add option will return EEXIST if any profile exists, and fails the load. This is why --replace is used it will load or replace. In upstream kernel 3.12 is the first to support loading multiple profiles, in a single load. Ubuntu has been carrying (and testing the patch) since Saucy