From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:34:07 -0400 Message-ID: <200805021034.08358.chris.mason@oracle.com> References: <200804291601.32945.chris.mason@oracle.com> <200805020852.51125.chris.mason@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: "Jan Engelhardt" , "Jeff Mahoney" , "Tim Gardner" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, "John Johansen" To: jeffschroeder@computer.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote: [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ] > Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor > exists in Ubuntu 8.04. > Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test > succeeds? Does this work in SUSE? > > http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/patches/btrfs/lame_apparmor_test >_for_btrfs.patch > Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch: /* * Even if AppArmor isn't enabled, it still has different prototypes. * Add more distro/version pairs here to declare which has AppArmor applied. */ #if defined(CONFIG_SUSE_KERNEL) # if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,22) # define REMOVE_SUID_PATH 1 # endif #endif Could someone from Ubuntu please suggest a replacement for CONFIG_SUSE_KERNEL and KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,22) that would correspond with ubuntu kernels shipped with apparmor? We don't need some define from the apparmor patch, just a global flag that says it comes from ubuntu is enough. -chris