[Patch 0/5] [Karmic] SRU: AppArmor fixes

[Stefan Bader]

Tim Gardner wrote:
> John Johansen wrote:
>> The following changes since commit 18fec74a0b2d08ddfe424cf9376a4f09fff9d2ee:
>>   Leann Ogasawara (1):
>>         UBUNTU: [Config] Move position of CONFIG_LIRC_ENE0100 for ports configs
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>   git://kernel.ubuntu.com/jj/apparmor-karmic.git master
>>
>> John Johansen (5):
>>       UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix oops after profile removal
>>       UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix Oops when in apparmor_bprm_set_creds
>>       UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix cap audit_caching preemption disabling
>>       UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix refcounting bug causing leak of creds
>>       UBUNTU: SAUCE: AppArmor: Fix oops there is no tracer and doing unsafe transition.
>>
>>  ubuntu/apparmor/capability.c |    1 +
>>  ubuntu/apparmor/domain.c     |    9 +++++++--
>>  ubuntu/apparmor/policy.c     |    2 +-
>>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>>
> 
> I believe what Stefan was referring to when he mentioned requiring a
> more thorough SRU explanation for these patches was the SRU
> justification in the LP bug. The SRU review team do not necessarily look
> at the commit message, so placing the SRU justification therein is
> superfluous.
> 
> See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates for more details.
> 
> rtg

Sort of my fault. I was not specific enough. I asked for it in the mail but
sort of was meaning the 0/x introduction part (so a quick reviewer here on
the list does not need to check the bug reports).
The commit message itself should not contain it. In this case it might just
be an addition to it in the mails sent. Any way I would sort it out before
applying and this is more for future reference.

-Stefan