Patchwork [Oneiric,0/13] AppArmor update for Oneiric

login
register
mail settings
Submitter John Johansen
Date Aug. 11, 2011, 5:02 a.m.
Message ID <1313038967-19941-1-git-send-email-john.johansen@canonical.com>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/109518/
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor

Comments

John Johansen - Aug. 11, 2011, 5:02 a.m.
The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility patches
along with adding new functionality for oneiric.

The following changes since commit 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:

  UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor

John Johansen (13):
      Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
      Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
      Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
      Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace"
      AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
      AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
      AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
      AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
      AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
      AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
      AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
      AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
      AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile

 security/apparmor/Makefile           |   22 ++++++++++++----
 security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c    |    2 +-
 security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c       |    2 +-
 security/apparmor/context.c          |   17 +++++++++++++
 security/apparmor/domain.c           |   10 ++-----
 security/apparmor/file.c             |    2 +-
 security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h |   12 ++++++++-
 security/apparmor/include/context.h  |   44 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
 security/apparmor/include/file.h     |    2 +
 security/apparmor/include/policy.h   |    4 +++
 security/apparmor/include/procattr.h |    2 +-
 security/apparmor/ipc.c              |   13 +++-------
 security/apparmor/lib.c              |    7 +++--
 security/apparmor/lsm.c              |   14 ++++++----
 security/apparmor/match.c            |    2 +-
 security/apparmor/policy.c           |    1 +
 security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c    |   11 ++++++++
 security/apparmor/procattr.c         |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 security/apparmor/resource.c         |   11 ++++++--
 19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
Tim Gardner - Aug. 11, 2011, 3:16 p.m.
On 08/10/2011 11:02 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility patches
> along with adding new functionality for oneiric.
>
> The following changes since commit 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:
>
>    UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>    git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor
>
> John Johansen (13):
>        Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>        Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>        Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>        Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace"
>        AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>        AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>        AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>        AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>        AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>        AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>        AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>        AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>        AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>
>   security/apparmor/Makefile           |   22 ++++++++++++----
>   security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c    |    2 +-
>   security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c       |    2 +-
>   security/apparmor/context.c          |   17 +++++++++++++
>   security/apparmor/domain.c           |   10 ++-----
>   security/apparmor/file.c             |    2 +-
>   security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h |   12 ++++++++-
>   security/apparmor/include/context.h  |   44 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>   security/apparmor/include/file.h     |    2 +
>   security/apparmor/include/policy.h   |    4 +++
>   security/apparmor/include/procattr.h |    2 +-
>   security/apparmor/ipc.c              |   13 +++-------
>   security/apparmor/lib.c              |    7 +++--
>   security/apparmor/lsm.c              |   14 ++++++----
>   security/apparmor/match.c            |    2 +-
>   security/apparmor/policy.c           |    1 +
>   security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c    |   11 ++++++++
>   security/apparmor/procattr.c         |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   security/apparmor/resource.c         |   11 ++++++--
>   19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>
>

What is the state of these patches with respect to upstream review? Have 
they landed in Morris' tree at least? linux-next ?

I think 'AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc' is 
completely mis-described.

rtg
John Johansen - Aug. 11, 2011, 4:20 p.m.
On 08/11/2011 08:16 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 11:02 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>> The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility patches
>> along with adding new functionality for oneiric.
>>
>> The following changes since commit 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:
>>
>> UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor
>>
>> John Johansen (13):
>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace"
>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>
>> security/apparmor/Makefile | 22 ++++++++++++----
>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c | 2 +-
>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c | 2 +-
>> security/apparmor/context.c | 17 +++++++++++++
>> security/apparmor/domain.c | 10 ++-----
>> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
>> security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h | 12 ++++++++-
>> security/apparmor/include/context.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> security/apparmor/include/file.h | 2 +
>> security/apparmor/include/policy.h | 4 +++
>> security/apparmor/include/procattr.h | 2 +-
>> security/apparmor/ipc.c | 13 +++-------
>> security/apparmor/lib.c | 7 +++--
>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 14 ++++++----
>> security/apparmor/match.c | 2 +-
>> security/apparmor/policy.c | 1 +
>> security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 11 ++++++++
>> security/apparmor/procattr.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> security/apparmor/resource.c | 11 ++++++--
>> 19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>
> What is the state of these patches with respect to upstream review? Have they landed in Morris' tree at least? linux-next ?
>
no,
   the compatibility patches, won't be going up, the reverts on those aren't even necessary it was more just to synchronize them with the slightly update versions carried in the upstream apparmor trees.
    Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
    Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
    Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
    Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace"
    AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
    AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
    AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace


the other patches are a subset of a much larger set, that I am preparing for submission. Out of those we can break the patches into two sets
  - the loosening of rlimits restrictions and the patch it pulled in (utility fn to get ...),
      AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
      AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits

    I could have backported "Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits" instead and dropped the second patch, but decided to try to keep to what is being submitted upstream.  The relaxing of the rlimit to the profile level instead of the only the current task, is just nice to have and matched up with some of the changes that went into the userspace.  So not strictly necessary.

   - The patch that got pulled in because of a use of kvzalloc, but I split the patch calling it and ended up removing its use.  I didn't notice that the dependency was no longer there so we can actually drop this one.
     AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc

   - the policy dfa
     AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
     AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
     AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile

    These allow loading the generic policy dfa, and querying it from userspace.  This doesn't actually change any kernel mediation yet, and is only being used by userspace to query about dbus messaging policy, which will be an opt in (default off) extension for oneiric.  This is almost the minimal patchset to support the dbus mediation feature, I could have dropped "AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command".

   I purposefully excluded the majority of the policy dfa patch queue, as parts of it isn't ready yet and it does affect in kernel mediation and I wanted at a minimum upstream review on it first before pulling it in, and ideally we will just pick it up from upstream (ie. its not for oneiric).


> I think 'AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc' is completely mis-described.
>
Hrmmm, not well described perhaps.  It should be more along the lines of

   Allow passing of flags to kvalloc and add kvzalloc wrapper function in vein of kzalloc
Tim Gardner - Aug. 11, 2011, 4:49 p.m.
On 08/11/2011 10:20 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 08:16 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 08/10/2011 11:02 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>> The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility patches
>>> along with adding new functionality for oneiric.
>>>
>>> The following changes since commit
>>> 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:
>>>
>>> UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)
>>>
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor
>>>
>>> John Johansen (13):
>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility
>>> with broken userspace"
>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>
>>> security/apparmor/Makefile | 22 ++++++++++++----
>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c | 2 +-
>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c | 2 +-
>>> security/apparmor/context.c | 17 +++++++++++++
>>> security/apparmor/domain.c | 10 ++-----
>>> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
>>> security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h | 12 ++++++++-
>>> security/apparmor/include/context.h | 44
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>> security/apparmor/include/file.h | 2 +
>>> security/apparmor/include/policy.h | 4 +++
>>> security/apparmor/include/procattr.h | 2 +-
>>> security/apparmor/ipc.c | 13 +++-------
>>> security/apparmor/lib.c | 7 +++--
>>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 14 ++++++----
>>> security/apparmor/match.c | 2 +-
>>> security/apparmor/policy.c | 1 +
>>> security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 11 ++++++++
>>> security/apparmor/procattr.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> security/apparmor/resource.c | 11 ++++++--
>>> 19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What is the state of these patches with respect to upstream review?
>> Have they landed in Morris' tree at least? linux-next ?
>>
> no,
> the compatibility patches, won't be going up, the reverts on those
> aren't even necessary it was more just to synchronize them with the
> slightly update versions carried in the upstream apparmor trees.
> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with
> broken userspace"
> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>
>
> the other patches are a subset of a much larger set, that I am preparing
> for submission. Out of those we can break the patches into two sets
> - the loosening of rlimits restrictions and the patch it pulled in
> (utility fn to get ...),
> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>
> I could have backported "Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits"
> instead and dropped the second patch, but decided to try to keep to what
> is being submitted upstream. The relaxing of the rlimit to the profile
> level instead of the only the current task, is just nice to have and
> matched up with some of the changes that went into the userspace. So not
> strictly necessary.
>
> - The patch that got pulled in because of a use of kvzalloc, but I split
> the patch calling it and ended up removing its use. I didn't notice that
> the dependency was no longer there so we can actually drop this one.
> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>
> - the policy dfa
> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>
> These allow loading the generic policy dfa, and querying it from
> userspace. This doesn't actually change any kernel mediation yet, and is
> only being used by userspace to query about dbus messaging policy, which
> will be an opt in (default off) extension for oneiric. This is almost
> the minimal patchset to support the dbus mediation feature, I could have
> dropped "AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command".
>
> I purposefully excluded the majority of the policy dfa patch queue, as
> parts of it isn't ready yet and it does affect in kernel mediation and I
> wanted at a minimum upstream review on it first before pulling it in,
> and ideally we will just pick it up from upstream (ie. its not for
> oneiric).
>
>
>> I think 'AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc' is
>> completely mis-described.
>>
> Hrmmm, not well described perhaps. It should be more along the lines of
>
> Allow passing of flags to kvalloc and add kvzalloc wrapper function in
> vein of kzalloc
>

I guess I don't understand why the compatibility patches aren't going 
upstream? I can't imagine Ubuntu is the only distro that might want a 
more recent kernel in an older, stable user space. I'm also reluctant to 
diverge so much from upstream.

rtg
John Johansen - Aug. 11, 2011, 5:09 p.m.
On 08/11/2011 09:49 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 10:20 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 08:16 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2011 11:02 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>> The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility patches
>>>> along with adding new functionality for oneiric.
>>>>
>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>> 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:
>>>>
>>>> UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)
>>>>
>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor
>>>>
>>>> John Johansen (13):
>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility
>>>> with broken userspace"
>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>>
>>>> security/apparmor/Makefile | 22 ++++++++++++----
>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c | 2 +-
>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c | 2 +-
>>>> security/apparmor/context.c | 17 +++++++++++++
>>>> security/apparmor/domain.c | 10 ++-----
>>>> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
>>>> security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h | 12 ++++++++-
>>>> security/apparmor/include/context.h | 44
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>> security/apparmor/include/file.h | 2 +
>>>> security/apparmor/include/policy.h | 4 +++
>>>> security/apparmor/include/procattr.h | 2 +-
>>>> security/apparmor/ipc.c | 13 +++-------
>>>> security/apparmor/lib.c | 7 +++--
>>>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 14 ++++++----
>>>> security/apparmor/match.c | 2 +-
>>>> security/apparmor/policy.c | 1 +
>>>> security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 11 ++++++++
>>>> security/apparmor/procattr.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> security/apparmor/resource.c | 11 ++++++--
>>>> 19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the state of these patches with respect to upstream review?
>>> Have they landed in Morris' tree at least? linux-next ?
>>>
>> no,
>> the compatibility patches, won't be going up, the reverts on those
>> aren't even necessary it was more just to synchronize them with the
>> slightly update versions carried in the upstream apparmor trees.
>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with
>> broken userspace"
>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>
>>
>> the other patches are a subset of a much larger set, that I am preparing
>> for submission. Out of those we can break the patches into two sets
>> - the loosening of rlimits restrictions and the patch it pulled in
>> (utility fn to get ...),
>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>
>> I could have backported "Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits"
>> instead and dropped the second patch, but decided to try to keep to what
>> is being submitted upstream. The relaxing of the rlimit to the profile
>> level instead of the only the current task, is just nice to have and
>> matched up with some of the changes that went into the userspace. So not
>> strictly necessary.
>>
>> - The patch that got pulled in because of a use of kvzalloc, but I split
>> the patch calling it and ended up removing its use. I didn't notice that
>> the dependency was no longer there so we can actually drop this one.
>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>
>> - the policy dfa
>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>
>> These allow loading the generic policy dfa, and querying it from
>> userspace. This doesn't actually change any kernel mediation yet, and is
>> only being used by userspace to query about dbus messaging policy, which
>> will be an opt in (default off) extension for oneiric. This is almost
>> the minimal patchset to support the dbus mediation feature, I could have
>> dropped "AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command".
>>
>> I purposefully excluded the majority of the policy dfa patch queue, as
>> parts of it isn't ready yet and it does affect in kernel mediation and I
>> wanted at a minimum upstream review on it first before pulling it in,
>> and ideally we will just pick it up from upstream (ie. its not for
>> oneiric).
>>
>>
>>> I think 'AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc' is
>>> completely mis-described.
>>>
>> Hrmmm, not well described perhaps. It should be more along the lines of
>>
>> Allow passing of flags to kvalloc and add kvzalloc wrapper function in
>> vein of kzalloc
>>
>
> I guess I don't understand why the compatibility patches aren't going upstream?
They are parts that got a NAK for one reason or another and what is or will be upstream is incompatible with an older userspace. We will be able to drop them in P+1, and if we don't support booting a P kernel on Lucid we can drop them in P.

> I can't imagine Ubuntu is the only distro that might want a more recent kernel in an older, stable user space.
Nope suse, pld and a few others carry them as well

> I'm also reluctant to diverge so much from upstream.
>
I can certainly understand, as that is why I axed multiple features that where planned for oneiric but aren't in -next yet.

The largest part of the deviation are the compatibility patches, I tried to prune the deviation down to a minimum.
Tim Gardner - Aug. 11, 2011, 5:22 p.m.
On 08/11/2011 11:09 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 09:49 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 10:20 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2011 08:16 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/2011 11:02 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>>> The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility
>>>>> patches
>>>>> along with adding new functionality for oneiric.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>> 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:
>>>>>
>>>>> UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor
>>>>>
>>>>> John Johansen (13):
>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility
>>>>> with broken userspace"
>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>>>
>>>>> security/apparmor/Makefile | 22 ++++++++++++----
>>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c | 2 +-
>>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c | 2 +-
>>>>> security/apparmor/context.c | 17 +++++++++++++
>>>>> security/apparmor/domain.c | 10 ++-----
>>>>> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
>>>>> security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h | 12 ++++++++-
>>>>> security/apparmor/include/context.h | 44
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>>> security/apparmor/include/file.h | 2 +
>>>>> security/apparmor/include/policy.h | 4 +++
>>>>> security/apparmor/include/procattr.h | 2 +-
>>>>> security/apparmor/ipc.c | 13 +++-------
>>>>> security/apparmor/lib.c | 7 +++--
>>>>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 14 ++++++----
>>>>> security/apparmor/match.c | 2 +-
>>>>> security/apparmor/policy.c | 1 +
>>>>> security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 11 ++++++++
>>>>> security/apparmor/procattr.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>> security/apparmor/resource.c | 11 ++++++--
>>>>> 19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the state of these patches with respect to upstream review?
>>>> Have they landed in Morris' tree at least? linux-next ?
>>>>
>>> no,
>>> the compatibility patches, won't be going up, the reverts on those
>>> aren't even necessary it was more just to synchronize them with the
>>> slightly update versions carried in the upstream apparmor trees.
>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with
>>> broken userspace"
>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>>
>>>
>>> the other patches are a subset of a much larger set, that I am preparing
>>> for submission. Out of those we can break the patches into two sets
>>> - the loosening of rlimits restrictions and the patch it pulled in
>>> (utility fn to get ...),
>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>>
>>> I could have backported "Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits"
>>> instead and dropped the second patch, but decided to try to keep to what
>>> is being submitted upstream. The relaxing of the rlimit to the profile
>>> level instead of the only the current task, is just nice to have and
>>> matched up with some of the changes that went into the userspace. So not
>>> strictly necessary.
>>>
>>> - The patch that got pulled in because of a use of kvzalloc, but I split
>>> the patch calling it and ended up removing its use. I didn't notice that
>>> the dependency was no longer there so we can actually drop this one.
>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>>
>>> - the policy dfa
>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>
>>> These allow loading the generic policy dfa, and querying it from
>>> userspace. This doesn't actually change any kernel mediation yet, and is
>>> only being used by userspace to query about dbus messaging policy, which
>>> will be an opt in (default off) extension for oneiric. This is almost
>>> the minimal patchset to support the dbus mediation feature, I could have
>>> dropped "AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command".
>>>
>>> I purposefully excluded the majority of the policy dfa patch queue, as
>>> parts of it isn't ready yet and it does affect in kernel mediation and I
>>> wanted at a minimum upstream review on it first before pulling it in,
>>> and ideally we will just pick it up from upstream (ie. its not for
>>> oneiric).
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think 'AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc' is
>>>> completely mis-described.
>>>>
>>> Hrmmm, not well described perhaps. It should be more along the lines of
>>>
>>> Allow passing of flags to kvalloc and add kvzalloc wrapper function in
>>> vein of kzalloc
>>>
>>
>> I guess I don't understand why the compatibility patches aren't going
>> upstream?
> They are parts that got a NAK for one reason or another and what is or
> will be upstream is incompatible with an older userspace. We will be
> able to drop them in P+1, and if we don't support booting a P kernel on
> Lucid we can drop them in P.
>
>> I can't imagine Ubuntu is the only distro that might want a more
>> recent kernel in an older, stable user space.
> Nope suse, pld and a few others carry them as well
>
>> I'm also reluctant to diverge so much from upstream.
>>
> I can certainly understand, as that is why I axed multiple features that
> where planned for oneiric but aren't in -next yet.
>
> The largest part of the deviation are the compatibility patches, I tried
> to prune the deviation down to a minimum.

OK, can you resend the pull request with the clean-ups you mentioned above?
John Johansen - Aug. 11, 2011, 5:44 p.m.
On 08/11/2011 10:22 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 11:09 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 09:49 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2011 10:20 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2011 08:16 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>>>> On 08/10/2011 11:02 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>>>> The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility
>>>>>> patches
>>>>>> along with adding new functionality for oneiric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>>> 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Johansen (13):
>>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility
>>>>>> with broken userspace"
>>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>>>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>>>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>>>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>>>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>>>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>>>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>>>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>>>>
>>>>>> security/apparmor/Makefile | 22 ++++++++++++----
>>>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> security/apparmor/context.c | 17 +++++++++++++
>>>>>> security/apparmor/domain.c | 10 ++-----
>>>>>> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h | 12 ++++++++-
>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/context.h | 44
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/file.h | 2 +
>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/policy.h | 4 +++
>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/procattr.h | 2 +-
>>>>>> security/apparmor/ipc.c | 13 +++-------
>>>>>> security/apparmor/lib.c | 7 +++--
>>>>>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 14 ++++++----
>>>>>> security/apparmor/match.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> security/apparmor/policy.c | 1 +
>>>>>> security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 11 ++++++++
>>>>>> security/apparmor/procattr.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>> security/apparmor/resource.c | 11 ++++++--
>>>>>> 19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the state of these patches with respect to upstream review?
>>>>> Have they landed in Morris' tree at least? linux-next ?
>>>>>
>>>> no,
>>>> the compatibility patches, won't be going up, the reverts on those
>>>> aren't even necessary it was more just to synchronize them with the
>>>> slightly update versions carried in the upstream apparmor trees.
>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with
>>>> broken userspace"
>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the other patches are a subset of a much larger set, that I am preparing
>>>> for submission. Out of those we can break the patches into two sets
>>>> - the loosening of rlimits restrictions and the patch it pulled in
>>>> (utility fn to get ...),
>>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>>>
>>>> I could have backported "Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits"
>>>> instead and dropped the second patch, but decided to try to keep to what
>>>> is being submitted upstream. The relaxing of the rlimit to the profile
>>>> level instead of the only the current task, is just nice to have and
>>>> matched up with some of the changes that went into the userspace. So not
>>>> strictly necessary.
>>>>
>>>> - The patch that got pulled in because of a use of kvzalloc, but I split
>>>> the patch calling it and ended up removing its use. I didn't notice that
>>>> the dependency was no longer there so we can actually drop this one.
>>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>>>
>>>> - the policy dfa
>>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>>
>>>> These allow loading the generic policy dfa, and querying it from
>>>> userspace. This doesn't actually change any kernel mediation yet, and is
>>>> only being used by userspace to query about dbus messaging policy, which
>>>> will be an opt in (default off) extension for oneiric. This is almost
>>>> the minimal patchset to support the dbus mediation feature, I could have
>>>> dropped "AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command".
>>>>
>>>> I purposefully excluded the majority of the policy dfa patch queue, as
>>>> parts of it isn't ready yet and it does affect in kernel mediation and I
>>>> wanted at a minimum upstream review on it first before pulling it in,
>>>> and ideally we will just pick it up from upstream (ie. its not for
>>>> oneiric).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think 'AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc' is
>>>>> completely mis-described.
>>>>>
>>>> Hrmmm, not well described perhaps. It should be more along the lines of
>>>>
>>>> Allow passing of flags to kvalloc and add kvzalloc wrapper function in
>>>> vein of kzalloc
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess I don't understand why the compatibility patches aren't going
>>> upstream?
>> They are parts that got a NAK for one reason or another and what is or
>> will be upstream is incompatible with an older userspace. We will be
>> able to drop them in P+1, and if we don't support booting a P kernel on
>> Lucid we can drop them in P.
>>
>>> I can't imagine Ubuntu is the only distro that might want a more
>>> recent kernel in an older, stable user space.
>> Nope suse, pld and a few others carry them as well
>>
>>> I'm also reluctant to diverge so much from upstream.
>>>
>> I can certainly understand, as that is why I axed multiple features that
>> where planned for oneiric but aren't in -next yet.
>>
>> The largest part of the deviation are the compatibility patches, I tried
>> to prune the deviation down to a minimum.
>
> OK, can you resend the pull request with the clean-ups you mentioned above?
Do you want the synced compat patches included or would you like to stay
with the ones we currently carry?
Tim Gardner - Aug. 11, 2011, 6:43 p.m.
On 08/11/2011 11:44 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 10:22 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 11:09 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2011 09:49 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2011 10:20 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>>> On 08/11/2011 08:16 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/10/2011 11:02 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>>>>> The following patch series reverts and updates the compatibility
>>>>>>> patches
>>>>>>> along with adding new functionality for oneiric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>>>> 7731cf0ecf5412872d5a4a25ab3ace22690f4408:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UBUNTU: Ubuntu-3.0.0-8.10 (2011-08-05 11:33:35 -0700)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/ubuntu-oneiric.git apparmor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Johansen (13):
>>>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility
>>>>>>> with broken userspace"
>>>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>>>>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>>>>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>>>>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>>>>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>>>>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>>>>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>>>>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/Makefile | 22 ++++++++++++----
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs-24.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/context.c | 17 +++++++++++++
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/domain.c | 10 ++-----
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h | 12 ++++++++-
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/context.h | 44
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/file.h | 2 +
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/policy.h | 4 +++
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/include/procattr.h | 2 +-
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/ipc.c | 13 +++-------
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/lib.c | 7 +++--
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 14 ++++++----
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/match.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/policy.c | 1 +
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 11 ++++++++
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/procattr.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>> security/apparmor/resource.c | 11 ++++++--
>>>>>>> 19 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the state of these patches with respect to upstream review?
>>>>>> Have they landed in Morris' tree at least? linux-next ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> no,
>>>>> the compatibility patches, won't be going up, the reverts on those
>>>>> aren't even necessary it was more just to synchronize them with the
>>>>> slightly update versions carried in the upstream apparmor trees.
>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix unpack of network tables."
>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface"
>>>>> Revert "AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll"
>>>>> Revert "UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with
>>>>> broken userspace"
>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 network controll
>>>>> AppArmor: compatibility patch for v5 interface
>>>>> AppArmor: Allow dfa backward compatibility with broken userspace
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the other patches are a subset of a much larger set, that I am
>>>>> preparing
>>>>> for submission. Out of those we can break the patches into two sets
>>>>> - the loosening of rlimits restrictions and the patch it pulled in
>>>>> (utility fn to get ...),
>>>>> AppArmor: add utility function to get an arbitrary tasks profile.
>>>>> AppArmor: Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits
>>>>>
>>>>> I could have backported "Relax the restrictions on setting rlimits"
>>>>> instead and dropped the second patch, but decided to try to keep to
>>>>> what
>>>>> is being submitted upstream. The relaxing of the rlimit to the profile
>>>>> level instead of the only the current task, is just nice to have and
>>>>> matched up with some of the changes that went into the userspace.
>>>>> So not
>>>>> strictly necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> - The patch that got pulled in because of a use of kvzalloc, but I
>>>>> split
>>>>> the patch calling it and ended up removing its use. I didn't notice
>>>>> that
>>>>> the dependency was no longer there so we can actually drop this one.
>>>>> AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc
>>>>>
>>>>> - the policy dfa
>>>>> AppArmor: Allow loading of policy containing generic policy dfa
>>>>> AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command
>>>>> AppArmor: add support for generic perm query again current profile
>>>>>
>>>>> These allow loading the generic policy dfa, and querying it from
>>>>> userspace. This doesn't actually change any kernel mediation yet,
>>>>> and is
>>>>> only being used by userspace to query about dbus messaging policy,
>>>>> which
>>>>> will be an opt in (default off) extension for oneiric. This is almost
>>>>> the minimal patchset to support the dbus mediation feature, I could
>>>>> have
>>>>> dropped "AppArmor: Remove "permipc" command".
>>>>>
>>>>> I purposefully excluded the majority of the policy dfa patch queue, as
>>>>> parts of it isn't ready yet and it does affect in kernel mediation
>>>>> and I
>>>>> wanted at a minimum upstream review on it first before pulling it in,
>>>>> and ideally we will just pick it up from upstream (ie. its not for
>>>>> oneiric).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think 'AppArmor: Add kvzalloc to handle zeroing for kvmalloc' is
>>>>>> completely mis-described.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hrmmm, not well described perhaps. It should be more along the
>>>>> lines of
>>>>>
>>>>> Allow passing of flags to kvalloc and add kvzalloc wrapper function in
>>>>> vein of kzalloc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess I don't understand why the compatibility patches aren't going
>>>> upstream?
>>> They are parts that got a NAK for one reason or another and what is or
>>> will be upstream is incompatible with an older userspace. We will be
>>> able to drop them in P+1, and if we don't support booting a P kernel on
>>> Lucid we can drop them in P.
>>>
>>>> I can't imagine Ubuntu is the only distro that might want a more
>>>> recent kernel in an older, stable user space.
>>> Nope suse, pld and a few others carry them as well
>>>
>>>> I'm also reluctant to diverge so much from upstream.
>>>>
>>> I can certainly understand, as that is why I axed multiple features that
>>> where planned for oneiric but aren't in -next yet.
>>>
>>> The largest part of the deviation are the compatibility patches, I tried
>>> to prune the deviation down to a minimum.
>>
>> OK, can you resend the pull request with the clean-ups you mentioned
>> above?
> Do you want the synced compat patches included or would you like to stay
> with the ones we currently carry?
>
>

Well, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. If the compat patches we 
currently carry are functional then I'd suggest we just stick with them. 
If you're having trouble getting upstream to accept these compatibility 
patches, then you might mention that without them application ABI is 
broken, something Linus frowns on.

At any rate, I'd like to keep our upstream delta as small as possible.

rtg