[Touch-packages] [Bug 1901373] Re: isc-dhcp-server AppArmor Denied on /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range

2021-05-19 Thread Norman Henderson
Admitting I know very little about apparmor, here is the profile that worked for me: # cat /etc/apparmor.d/usr.sbin.dhcpd # vim:syntax=apparmor #include /usr/sbin/dhcpd { #include #include capability chown, capability dac_override, capability net_bind_service, capability

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1901373] Re: isc-dhcp-server AppArmor Denied on /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range

2021-05-19 Thread Norman Henderson
Proposed fix does not work for me, gives AppArmor parser error at line 3: Found unexpected character ''' I am also puzzled that this apparmor profile is completely different in form than others proposed e.g. at: https://github.com/Harvie/AppArmor-Profiles/blob/master/usr.sbin.dhcpd ??? -- You

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1611945] Re: /dev/disk/by-path not properly populated for (e)SATA port multiplier disks

2018-02-12 Thread Norman Henderson
Ladies and Gentlemen, The technical stuff is way over my head but I am getting the same syslog errors and the same inconsistent device paths on an HP Proliant ML110 G7 with Ubuntu 16.04.3 kernel 4.4.0-98-generic. It seems clear that no-one is taking ownership of this to fix it in an actual update

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1176046] Re: isc-dhcp dhclient listens on extra random ports

2017-05-10 Thread Norman Henderson
Eric, please see 1670303 - pending a substantive solution there, would you be willing to fix dhcpd in the corresponding way that you have fixed dhclient here, i.e. by making separate packages available with or without ddns support? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1670303] Re: dhcpd does not respect ip_local_port _range or ip_local_reserved_ports

2017-05-10 Thread Norman Henderson
IMHO this is an important bug because it randomly interferes with other applications - lots of which use defined ports above 1024. My recent case caused an OpenVPN instance to fail to start. More seriously it created a security risk since the port in question was of course open on the firewall