Web lists-archives.com

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

On 11/28/2017 11:56 AM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:24:58 -0600
Dale Schroeder <dale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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Do not quote me but, I have read that AppArmor is intended more for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

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 means
         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

             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 with
         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 correct,
         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 too 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.

The problem is that debian has fixed only half of the problem, yes
recommend apparmor by all means, but they also need to fix systemd
units to NOT fail if apparmor isn't installed, after all, apparmor is a
'recommend' and not a 'dependency'. If some systemd units fail if
apparmor isn't installed, then this is, undoubtedly, a bug.

Mind you, all of this is irrelevant to me, I do not use systemd ;-)
You're a lucky guy, Roland. ;-) I've been burned several different times with different aspects of systemd, even prior to apparmor.

You are absolutely correct in that the released systemd units should all work from the beginning.  I hope that it gets more reliable; time will tell.


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