On Sun, 26 May 2024 13:39:07 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso <car...@debian.org> 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).
Very nice, thank you! In the meanwhile, I found a way to reliably detecting this and gracefully skipping it in systemd, so debci is now fixed. However, it still results in PrivateNetwork= being quietly disabled, so the backport is still very much needed, as it is a useful security feature. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
