Hello Philip, Am 29.10.2017 um 14:27 schrieb Philipp Kern: > On 08/05/2017 01:31 AM, intrigeri wrote: >> What's the cost for package maintainers? >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> For most of them: none at all. As said earlier, our AppArmor policy >> does not cover that much software yet. > > So how will bug reports work? For instance I turned it on and now I see > a bunch of warnings[1] from Thunderbird and a bunch of actual failures > when opening links (which is completely broken), because Thunderbird > cannot exec google-chrome-beta. What about integration issues where a > browser should be able to register itself as a browser and hence be > available from applications that try to open links? > > Right now thunderbird's profile is owned by thunderbird. Is > thunderbird's maintainer expected to deal with all of these issues? > Should there be some kind of tool where the apparmor team could > aggregate the updates? (I.e. routinely review denies?)
in the near past I've forwarded bug reports about apparmor suggestions and issues to Simon Diezel (CC'd) and also to intrigeri. This works quite well now due a good responsive behavior of both and I'm really thankful for this! Right after the beginning of the apparmor profile for Icedove/Thunderbird I was a bit skeptic if the shipping of the profile within the ID/TB packaging will work and is maintainable as I haven't use apparmor ever before and due this have quite zero experience with that. I got the impression that the profile would be better under the hood of the apparmor team as there is much more knowledge about the working model. Starting with this thread and by some talking to various people I changed my mind about this. For better flexibility and customizing, thinking about various releases (like *-security, *-backports e.g.) that need to be supported, I believe apparmor profiles for the applications should stay in the belonging source packages in most cases. Ubuntu is doing the opposite as far as I know [1], the time will show which way is batter. But yes, the maintainers of such packages need the help of the apparmor folks and also vice versa. For Thunderbird intrigeri and myself came to the conclusion that especially for the apparmor profile someone from the apparmor team should be able to contribute changes to the profile directly to the git tree. So intrigeri has become a member of the pkg-mozilla group to be able to push changes by himself. I trust intrigeri enough that he will do good contributions. For now it's the best we can do. This at all is for sure improvable and we should talk about this on upcoming Debian events or directly via email. ... > [1] e.g. > [ 3459.624852] audit: type=1400 audit(1509283082.571:59): > apparmor="DENIED" operation="file_inherit" profile="thunderbird//gpg" > name="/usr/share/thunderbird/omni.ja" pid=24720 comm="gpg2" > requested_mask="r" denied_mask="r" fsuid=1000 ouid=0 > > [2] e.g. > [ 3795.153239] audit: type=1400 audit(1509283418.100:64): > apparmor="DENIED" operation="exec" profile="thunderbird" > name="/opt/google/chrome-beta/google-chrome-beta" pid=31896 > comm="thunderbird" requested_mask="x" denied_mask="x" fsuid=1000 ouid=0 I suggest to open a bug report for each of such issues against thunderbird with a description what was done and what was expected. [1] https://git.launchpad.net/apparmor-profiles/tree/ubuntu/17.10 -- Regards Carsten Schoenert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
