Originally posted by boxie
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux 4.14-rc7 No Longer Clashes With AppArmor To Break Networking
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by cyberwizzard View PostDoes anyone know why Linus is 'unhappy' with AppArmor as it is?
1. This situation with the regression, but more importantly not acknowledging it was a kernel regression.
2. Some big merge apparently had a commit message that said it did something completely different from what the code actually did, and Linus got involved with that as well.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostWhat if it had said Linux 4.14-rc7 no longer clashes with AppArmor 2.11... ?
Technically speaking there is both a clash with AppArmor userpace tool AND the lack of some new rules, see here https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...cgi?bug=877581
No. Bullshit is when you try to explain why you think the way you do.
The commit doesn't change the API, but adds something new to it.
Versioned API isn't a brand new idea, and it would have solved this issue.
The mistake was that some AppArmor configurations were outdated.
The point here is that Linux promises to NOT break userspace this way, and this was set in stone long time ago.
Only once Linus threw his tantrum and came up with his bullshit explaining why this was suddenly a regression
And for "stable" it means "not breaking userspace". How userspace breaks is not relevant, the rule is generic.
It still is just a new feature and Debian, not being the most modern distro, used an outdated ruleset and thereby cut off its network connection.
All distros using Apparmor have to adjust, or didn't have to because they are SUSE-based so the devs knew this beforehand, but the latter isn't a good reason to break promises.
I guess some folks got scared by 4.14 when they suddenly lost their network connection and could no longer ask Google for a solution.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post...
Like I said above, you're feeling empowered by the tantrum, everything you say now you want to believe as true, because you feel Linus has your back. You're still an idiot ... as always. Don't look away when people get mad. Start seeing people for who they are.Last edited by sdack; 30 October 2017, 03:22 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostThe Debian people saw it as a fault in their AppArmor rule set and had planned to fix it before the new kernel lands in Unstable. Nobody of the normal users would have taken notice of it if it wasn't for the tantrum.
Now the AppArmor people have to add a new AppArmor API so that outdated versions of their AppArmor software can work with newer kernels by having two AppArmor APIs...
This is what all filesystems do, for example, when they add a new and non-retro-compatible feature they don't make the whole goddamn driver obsolete and make a full new one for a few features.
To me, that's the real bullshit, and Linus wanting his acknowledgement ofc. He doesn't give two fucks about people having a problem with it. His problem is getting an acknowledgement for his idea of a regression. That's messed up. He's a hypocrite and perhaps he knows it, which might be why he throws tantrums trying to hide it or whatever.
Maybe, just maybe, it makes sense for more people than just Torvalds.
But no, it's totally a tantrum Torvalds is using to attract attention like trolls do in forums, oh wait...
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostMaybe, just maybe, it makes sense for more people than just Torvalds.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostDon't kid yourself. It doesn't make sense for you either. You're not that blind. Even I think you still have a brain big enough to think for yourself and don't need others to put up red tape everywhere around you. Somehow I feel you're just going to prove me wrong anyway ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by F.Ultra View PostWait, so you expect a kernel to break user space and that doing so would make sense?
What then makes sense and doesn't has nothing to do with rules. Sense comes from context and if a change makes sense, or if it doesn't, depends on the context. If then the only context you can find is that it broke a rule then fuck the rule and move on, or you just end up digging yourself into a pile of BS without any substance and for you to be believable.
Do you disagree?Last edited by sdack; 30 October 2017, 05:42 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostDon't kid yourself. It doesn't make sense for you either. You're not that blind. Even I think you still have a brain big enough to think for yourself and don't need others to put up red tape everywhere around you. Somehow I feel you're just going to prove me wrong anyway ...
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment