Linux 5.5 Lands Fix For The AppArmor Performance Regression

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux 5.5 Lands Fix For The AppArmor Performance Regression

Linux 5.5 as of this morning should have one less performance regression in tow if you are running on Debian/Ubuntu or otherwise having AppArmor enabled...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-5.5-AppArmor-Fixed

[perpetually high]

Great work again Michael on tracking that apparmor bug down. This one and the one prior that you caught, I wonder how long they would have gone unnoticed if you didn't ring the alarm.

[milkylainen]

This one and the one prior that you caught, I wonder how long they would have gone unnoticed if you didn't ring the alarm.

Probably ages.

[perpetually high]

Probably ages.

Ha you're not wrong, and I was thinking about it a little further... more than likely it would have come in a future Phoronix article where Michael benchmarks each kernel and we notice the dip in 5.5, and then we'd have to go back and bisect (as he did), so maybe two or three months at least (maybe less with Michael's activity :P) that we'd be eating those performance regressions. Because who would honestly have suspected apparmor as time went on? And who is actively benchmarking latest RC versions of the kernel?

So yes, we owe a great debt to Michael in my opinion for dedicating his life to Linux. I know I'm just rambling at this point but with a brand new newborn and Michael's workaholic tendencies, is anyone else worried about him finding time to sleep?

[Moscato]

There is a reason I subbed here

He deserves a lot of support

[CommunityMember]

Probably ages.

Possibly. Although Canonical and/or SUSE would likely have noticed based on their internal testing before they released a 5.5 kernel (I would guess the holidays reduced their staffing levels to identify and address any such issues), as they configure/use AppArmor as a default. If Canonical did not have an internal QA that would have noticed the regression before the kernel release and their use of that kernel (I believe 20.04 LTS was targeting 5.5), that is a far more important issue that raises a lot of questions.

[timofonic]

Please do not use Canonical developed software.

Canonical sucks.

AppArmor sucks. Use something else instead.

Does Canonical needs more babysitting or are they going to do proper software development?

Does Novell still uses AppArmor? I see it's included in openSuse, but not sure if it's actively supported.

[CommunityMember]

Canonical sucks.

There are a number of issues with Canonical's approach for anyone who is actually a contributor (regarding their CLA "we can do as we wish with your work" agreement), but the reality is that they have great mind-share with a certain user base. That counts for something, if not any actual profit.

[NotMine999]

Please do not use Canonical developed software.

Canonical sucks.

AppArmor sucks. Use something else instead.

Does Canonical needs more babysitting or are they going to do proper software development?

Does Novell still uses AppArmor? I see it's included in openSuse, but not sure if it's actively supported.

It is also found in the Debian "stable" package family, among others:

https://packages.debian.org/search?k...le&section=all

[szymon_g]

Please do not use Canonical developed software.

Canonical sucks.

AppArmor sucks. Use something else instead.

Does Canonical needs more babysitting or are they going to do proper software development?

Does Novell still uses AppArmor? I see it's included in openSuse, but not sure if it's actively supported.

it still sucks less than SELinux. tomoyo doesn't seem to be used by anyone either.