Web lists-archives.com

Re: [Samba] Debian Buster, bind_dlz, and apparmor

On 11/28/2017 11:11 AM, Robert Wooden wrote:

Been using Ubuntu server for years in my AD. Discovered a long time ago that apparmor is not needed for a server. (Someone is probably going to argue the other that is should be but . . .)

Do not quote me but, I have read that AppArmor is intended more for a desktop environment. I have always disabled and then removed AppArmor and have never had any issues. Of course I am behind a hardware firewall so, hopefully, no exposure to any unwanted attacks.

All my servers work fine without AppArmor.

As an Ubuntu user, my 2 cents . . .

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dale Schroeder via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    On 11/28/2017 9:02 AM, Rowland Penny wrote:

        On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:37:22 -0600
        Dale Schroeder via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

            On 11/28/2017 2:38 AM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:

                On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:53:32 -0600
                Dale Schroeder via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                <mailto:samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

                    Last week, Debian testing (Buster) added apparmor
                    to the list of
                    dependencies for its latest kernel release,
                    apparently because
                    systemd needs it.  Recently, I noticed my first
                    casualty - bind9 -
                    due to apparmor failures with bind_dlz.

                    Knowing next to nothing about apparmor, what is
                    needed to fix this,
                    and what further info do you need from me?


                I cannot seem to find a debian kernel that has a
                dependency on
                apparmor, can you provide a link ?

                Even if debian is making the kernel depend on apparmor
                (by the way,
                does Linus know about this  ?), this isn't a Samba
                problem, it is an
                apparmor one.



            Thanks for responding.


            [ Ben Hutchings ]
                * linux-image: Recommend apparmor, as systemd units
            with an
            AppArmor profile will fail without it (Closes: #880441)

            So, although the word "recommend" implies that one has a
            choice, in
            reality, the kernel upgrade would not proceed without

        Then it is a bug, depend means it will be installed, recommend
        what it says, it is recommended to install it, but you do not
        need to.

            I suppose it would be possible to disable, but assuming
            the systemd
            warning is a harbinger of things to come, it seemed best
            to me to
            figure it out now.  I know systemd is not your thing, and I am
            inclined to agree; however, Debian sees it otherwise,
            leaving me to
            deal with it.

        Easier way out of this, stop using debian and use Devuan instead.

            I asked here because there is a wiki section devoted to
            the topic -

            Thus far, SELinux has not been forced by Debian.
            Regardless, since
            the apparmor install, I have not been able to get Bind9 to
            start if
            bind_dlz is enabled.

        As I said, apparmor has nothing to do with Samba, the same
        goes for
        selinux and, in my opinion, they should figure out how to work
        Samba, not the other way round. The page on the wiki is
        supplied as a
        service, but Samba has no real way to know if the settings are
        it relies on feedback from users.


    Likewise, I had hoped some of the Ubuntu or Red Hat-derived OS
    users would chime in.  I had previously tried several different
    incantations with no luck.  Just now, I found this, taken from

      /var/lib/samba/private/krb5.co <http://krb5.co>nf r,
      /var/lib/samba/private/dns.keytab r,
      /var/lib/samba/private/named.conf r,
      /var/lib/samba/private/dns/** rwk,
      /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/samba/** m,
      /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ldb/modules/ldb/** m,

    This dated recipe works for me where newer ones did not. BIND
    9.10.6 is happy again.  YMMV


-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
    instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Thank you. Bob Wooden

615.885.2846www.donelsontrophy.com <http://www.donelsontrophy.com>

"Everyone deserves an award!!"

I agree with everything you say and would rather not have it, but if Debian's kernel maintainers are correct in that more systemd service files will require apparmor, what other choice do I have but to learn it?  I am not sure why Debian has decided to follow the systemd/apparmor path, but I guess I get to go along for the ride. If it becomes to onerous, I may have to do as you did and remove it.  BTW, the apparmor file for ntp worked out of the box, no modifications on my part required.

To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba