Bug#1050256: AppArmor breaks locking non-fs Unix sockets

[Salvatore Bonaccorso]

Hi John,

On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:12:52PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2024 at 09:35:25PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 01:39:07PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > For those watching this bug: John has prepared backports in his tree,
> > > with both approaches:
> > > 
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jj/linux-apparmor.git/log/?h=debian-two-patch-1780227
> > > 
> > > and
> > > 
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jj/linux-apparmor.git/log/?h=debian-backport-1780227
> > > 
> > > (but with the open question which one will be submitted for stable.
> > > >From upstream stable point of view probably the two patch backport
> > > approach would be the preferred one).
> > 
> > We still have tis issue open for 6.1.y upstream TTBOMK. If you are
> > confident as maintainer with any of the two approaches, would it be
> > possible to submit them for stable? If the preferred one get then
> > accepted and queued, we might already cherry-pick the solution for us,
> > but at this point we can wait for the respective 6.1.y stable version
> > which will include the fix.
> 
> Friendly ping. Any news here?

Anything we can do there to help on the decision which set of fixes
could land in the 6.1.y stable series? Would it help if I prod Mathias
to test both variants for feedback? 

Or is there a problem you envision already by trying to backport those
fixes to upstream 6.1.y?

Thanks for your work, and sorry for pestering you again about it :(

Regards,
Salvatore