Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test: load aa-profiles with compatible ABIs for the host #207

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 7, 2024

Conversation

MoisesGSalas
Copy link
Contributor

@MoisesGSalas MoisesGSalas commented Oct 23, 2024

AppArmor uses the Policy feature ABI to establish which rules it can enforced based on the kernel capabilities.

In Ubuntu 20.04 and 22.04 the /etc/apparmor/parser.conf defined a fallback pined policy (policy-features=/etc/apparmor.d/abi/2.13 and policy-features=/etc/apparmor.d/abi/kernel-5.4-outoftree-network, respectively). On Ubuntu 24.04 the fallback ABIs are not pinned and thus the networking rules are not enforced. We add the 3.0 ABI to the profile meant to be used on Ubuntu>=22.04.

Notes:

From what I understand the release of Ubuntu 22.04 was a little bit a ahead of the AppArmor 3 release so they needed a patched Kernel and a different ABI (https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/tree/debian/patches/ubuntu/enable-pinning-of-pre-AppArmor-3.x-poli.patch?h=ubuntu/jammy). Current versions of Ubuntu already ship the 3.0 ABI and the kernel with upstream support for the networking rules so we can simply use that one.

This comment was really helpful in understanding the problem: netblue30/firejail#3659 (comment)

@openedx-webhooks openedx-webhooks added the open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U label Oct 23, 2024
@openedx-webhooks
Copy link

openedx-webhooks commented Oct 23, 2024

Thanks for the pull request, @MoisesGSalas!

What's next?

Please work through the following steps to get your changes ready for engineering review:

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

  • If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
    • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
  • If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

  • Dependencies

    This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

  • Blockers

    This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

  • Timeline information

    This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

  • Partner information

    This is for a course on edx.org.

  • Supporting documentation
  • Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:

Who will review my changes?

This repository is currently maintained by @moisesgsalas. Tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for review.

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

  • The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
  • The need for product review
  • Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

@MoisesGSalas MoisesGSalas changed the title ci: load a profile using abi4 when running on noble test: load aa-profiles with compatible ABIs for the host Oct 31, 2024
@MoisesGSalas MoisesGSalas marked this pull request as ready for review October 31, 2024 15:02
@MoisesGSalas
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @feanil, I think I already found how to fix the tests on 24.04.

Btw, should I always be tagging you for review, are you the only one?

Copy link
Contributor

@feanil feanil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think right now it's just you and me that knows this stuff well. I think we should also bump the version and update the readme to make it clear which version of the profile to use on which versions of ubuntu, can you add that to this PR and then I think it's good to merge and release.

.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@feanil feanil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One small suggestion but then this looks good to land and release. Be sure to mention that this adds Ubuntu 24.04 support as a part of the release notes.

README.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
When not specified AppArmor fallbacks to a default policy specified in
the `/etc/apparmor/parser.conf` file. Ubuntu 24.04 does not pin an ABI
with network features and such rules are not enforced.

From Ubuntu 22.04 onwards, the ABI 3.0 is available so we use that one.
For Ubuntu 20.04 we rely on the fallback ABI (2.13).
@MoisesGSalas MoisesGSalas merged commit a9c3b31 into master Nov 7, 2024
5 checks passed
@MoisesGSalas MoisesGSalas deleted the mgs/ubuntu24-tests branch November 7, 2024 17:01
@MoisesGSalas MoisesGSalas mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2024
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants