Hi Serge - I think it is still a possibility in the wily time frame. Also, I've just confirmed that nobody snuck a fix into the 2.10 release.
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1403968 Title: umount options are incorrectly treated as mount options Status in AppArmor: Triaged Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: apparmor_parser is treating options on umount rules as mount options. The flags used in mount(2) are entirely different than the flags used in umount2() and apparmor_parser knows nothing about the umount2() flags (MNT_FORCE, MNT_DETACH, MNT_EXPIRE, UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW). This can be demonstrated by trying to compile a policy, with apparmor_parser version 2.9.1, containing a umount rule that is conditional on the "force" option: $ echo "/t { umount options=force, }" | ./apparmor_parser -qQ; echo $? unsupported mount options 1 Now we'll use a mount flag in the umount rule: $ echo "/t { umount options=nosuid, }" | ./apparmor_parser -qQ; echo $? 0 The umount rule with a umount option fails to compile but the umount rule with a mount option compiles. This is not the intended behavior and it should be the other way around. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/apparmor/+bug/1403968/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
