Hello John, On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 02:36:49PM -0700, John Johansen wrote: > On 6/3/25 14:03, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > > > Hi Laurent, > > > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 05:14:12PM +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > > > reopen 872726 > > > found 872726 6.12.30-1 > > > thanks > > > > You reopened this very old issue. I see two aspects: We do not want to > > have bugs opened forever if there is no chance of a respective > > upstream change fixing the issue. > > > > So with this in mind I think it would be great if you can try to > > respin the convesation with upstream and see if there is movement on > > this topic. > > > > Otherwise, if there is no chance to implement this, we can mark it > > wontfix (and so this time with an explanation ;-)) and then close and > > archive it again. > > > > In short: any chance you can try to reach out to upstream for a > > current state on this topic and loop us back? > > > > Yes we can try, and honestly we need to try because this is going to > become more problematic when we start stacking apparmor with selinux > as more than just a demo. > > We are about 20 patches away from the upstream kernel being able to > do this. It will be a few weeks before we can even get to trying this > but I will add it to the queue of tickets. Maybe I can even get some > priority on it by tying it to our work to get apparmor available in > fedora
I have the impression you work with upstream on that issue and while the bug report is correct there is no need for the Debian kernel team to get active, right? And the impact for Debian users is practically void until there is a kernel which allows to use apparmor and selinux together? In that case I see little benefit to keep this bug open, given that the only action needed here is tracking when it's fixed upstream and add a bug closer to d/changelog then. Am I missing something? Best regards Uwe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
