NACK/Cmnt: [SRU][Xenial][PATCH 0/1] Fix memory leak on profile removal

[Georgia Garcia]

On Mon, 2021-08-16 at 09:21 +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 13.08.21 21:07, Georgia Garcia wrote:
> > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1939915
> > 
> > SRU Justification:
> > 
> > [Impact]
> > There's a memory leak on AppArmor when removing a profile. When the
> > proxy isn't replaced and the profile is removed, the proxy is leaked.
> > 
> > [Fix]
> > 
> > Upstream commit 3622ad25d4d fixes the leak by cleaning up the label
> > structure within the profile when the profile is getting freed. The
> > proxy is freed correctly when cleaning up the label.
> > 
> > [Test Plan]
> > 
> > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak should not return a memleak when removing
> > a profile.
> > 
> > root at ubuntu:~# echo "profile foo {}" > profile
> > root at ubuntu:~# apparmor_parser profile
> > root at ubuntu:~# echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
> > root at ubuntu:~# cat /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
> > 
> > [Where problems could occur]
> > Low probability of any problem. There's no longer a leak.
> > 
> > 
> > John Johansen (1):
> >    apparmor: Fix memory leak of profile proxy
> > 
> >   security/apparmor/include/label.h |  1 +
> >   security/apparmor/label.c         | 16 +++++++---------
> >   security/apparmor/policy.c        |  1 +
> >   3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> This was submitted for X and B/F and apparently it is all the same patch. 

Yes, they all are cherry-picked from the same upstream commit, but the
patch for F does not apply cleanly in B and vice versa.

> But 
> Xenial is ESM and those are handled on a different mailing list. And B/F should 
> be a single thread submission.

Just to be clear, does that mean that I should send the patch for B and
the patch for F in a single thread submission?

Thanks,
Georgia