On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 08:39 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Lo, your friendly regression tracker here! > > On 03.10.2017 09:17, John Johansen wrote: > > > > On 10/02/2017 11:48 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > > > On 10/03/2017 07:15 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 21:11 -0700, John Johansen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 10/02/2017 09:02 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The specific problem is that dnsmasq refuses to start on > > > > > > openSUSE Leap 42.2. The specific cause is that and attempt > > > > > > to open a PF_LOCAL socket gets EACCES. This means that > > > > > > networking doesn't function on a system with a 4.14-rc2 > > > > > > system. Reverting commit > > > > > > 651e28c5537abb39076d3949fb7618536f1d242e > > > > > > (apparmor: add base infastructure for socket mediation) > > > > > > causes the system to function again. > > > > > This is not a kernel regression, > > > > Regression means something that worked in a previous version of > > > > the kernel which is broken now. This problem falls within that > > > > definition. > > > Hm, but if this was because opensuse kernel and apparmor rules > > > relied on an out-of-tree patch, then it's not an upstream > > > regression? > > While its true that previous opensuse kernels were relying on an > > out of tree patch for doing mediation in this area, the real issue > > is the configuration of the userspace on the system is setup to > > enforce new policy features advertised by the kernel. Regardless of > > whether policy has been updated to deal with it. > > Did anything came out of this discussion?
Not really, no. I've got the patch reverted locally, so it's not causing *me* problems anymore. > I checked LKML and recent commits, but missed if anything happened. > But it seems this problem annoys quite a few of people on various > distros. It turned out one of the the regressions in my last > regression report seemed to be due to the changes in apparmor. See: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197137#7 > > That commit links to two bugs filed for Debian and Ubuntu: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/1724450 > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877581 > > The stuff even made the news: > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AppArmor-Linux-4. > 14 > > It's obviously Linus to decide in the end, but from my understanding > of the whole "no regressions" rule this looks quite a lot like a > regression to me. It's certainly a lack of co-ordination between all the apparmour using upstreams, yes. I think of it as a regression because I have no way other than reverting the patch of getting my system running again. I'd also argue that treating this as a regression might possibly encourage better co-ordination in future. James
