Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but Ubuntu
once had this issue with AppArmor:

https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix

If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
docs.

rday

Re: [docs] Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

[Antonin Godard]

Hi,

On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 2:57 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>   I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but Ubuntu
> once had this issue with AppArmor:
>
> https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix
>
> If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
> docs.

I don't have a running Ubuntu 26.04 distribution but I would say it is still the
case if 26.04 is still running AppArmor.

Users will face the same error as before which is:

  bb.fatal("User namespaces are not usable by BitBake, possibly due to AppArmor.\n"
           "See https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-04-lts-noble-numbat-release-notes/39890#unprivileged-user-namespace-restrictions for more information.")

In OE-Core's meta/lib/oe/sanity.py.

This sounds like something we could say in the docs. Would you mind sending a
patch for that?

Thanks,
Antonin

Re: [docs] Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2026-09-11 at 09:36 +0200, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 2:57 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 
> >   I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but Ubuntu
> > once had this issue with AppArmor:
> > 
> > https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix
> > 
> > If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
> > docs.
> 
> I don't have a running Ubuntu 26.04 distribution but I would say it is still the
> case if 26.04 is still running AppArmor.

I can confirm users do hit this on Ubuntu systems, I've run into this myself.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [docs] Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 2:57 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >   I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but Ubuntu
> > once had this issue with AppArmor:
> >
> > https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix
> >
> > If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
> > docs.
>
> I don't have a running Ubuntu 26.04 distribution but I would say it is still the
> case if 26.04 is still running AppArmor.
>
> Users will face the same error as before which is:
>
>   bb.fatal("User namespaces are not usable by BitBake, possibly due to AppArmor.\n"
>            "See https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-04-lts-noble-numbat-release-notes/39890#unprivileged-user-namespace-restrictions for more information.")
>
> In OE-Core's meta/lib/oe/sanity.py.
>
> This sounds like something we could say in the docs. Would you mind sending a
> patch for that?

  seems to me that the proper place for this would be a "warning"
admonition at the tail end of this section:

https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/system-requirements.html#supported-linux-distributions

i wouldn't want to get into incredible detail there, just point out
that starting with ubuntu 24.04, you would get that namespaces error,
then refer the reader to that discourse link for the solution. does
that sound adequate? i don't think the YP docs need to reproduce the
solution in its entirety.

rday

Re: [docs] Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2026-09-11 at 05:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 2:57 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > 
> > >   I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but
> > > Ubuntu
> > > once had this issue with AppArmor:
> > > 
> > > https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix
> > > 
> > > If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
> > > docs.
> > 
> > I don't have a running Ubuntu 26.04 distribution but I would say it
> > is still the
> > case if 26.04 is still running AppArmor.
> > 
> > Users will face the same error as before which is:
> > 
> >   bb.fatal("User namespaces are not usable by BitBake, possibly due
> > to AppArmor.\n"
> >            "See
> > https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-04-lts-noble-numbat-release-notes/39890#unprivileged-user-namespace-restrictions
> >  for more information.")
> > 
> > In OE-Core's meta/lib/oe/sanity.py.
> > 
> > This sounds like something we could say in the docs. Would you mind
> > sending a
> > patch for that?
> 
>   seems to me that the proper place for this would be a "warning"
> admonition at the tail end of this section:
> 
> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/system-requirements.html#supported-linux-distributions
> 
> i wouldn't want to get into incredible detail there, just point out
> that starting with ubuntu 24.04, you would get that namespaces error,
> then refer the reader to that discourse link for the solution. does
> that sound adequate? i don't think the YP docs need to reproduce the
> solution in its entirety.

This is important enough I think we should have it documented
ourselves, not externally where it could disappear.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [docs] Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

[Robert P. J. Day]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2084 bytes --]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:

> On Fri, 2026-09-11 at 05:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day via
> lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 2:57 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > >
> > > >   I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but
> > > > Ubuntu
> > > > once had this issue with AppArmor:
> > > >
> > > > https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix
> > > >
> > > > If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
> > > > docs.
> > >
> > > I don't have a running Ubuntu 26.04 distribution but I would say it
> > > is still the
> > > case if 26.04 is still running AppArmor.
> > >
> > > Users will face the same error as before which is:
> > >
> > >   bb.fatal("User namespaces are not usable by BitBake, possibly due
> > > to AppArmor.\n"
> > >            "See
> > > https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-04-lts-noble-numbat-release-notes/39890#unprivileged-user-namespace-restrictions
> > >  for more information.")
> > >
> > > In OE-Core's meta/lib/oe/sanity.py.
> > >
> > > This sounds like something we could say in the docs. Would you mind
> > > sending a
> > > patch for that?
> >
> >   seems to me that the proper place for this would be a "warning"
> > admonition at the tail end of this section:
> >
> > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/system-requirements.html#supported-linux-distributions
> >
> > i wouldn't want to get into incredible detail there, just point out
> > that starting with ubuntu 24.04, you would get that namespaces error,
> > then refer the reader to that discourse link for the solution. does
> > that sound adequate? i don't think the YP docs need to reproduce the
> > solution in its entirety.
>
> This is important enough I think we should have it documented
> ourselves, not externally where it could disappear.

  So where should it go, and is anyone else keen on doing it? :-)

rday

Re: [docs] Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

[Antonin Godard]

On Fri Sep 11, 2026 at 7:41 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2026-09-11 at 05:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day via
>> lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 2:57 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >   I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but
>> > > > Ubuntu
>> > > > once had this issue with AppArmor:
>> > > >
>> > > > https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix
>> > > >
>> > > > If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
>> > > > docs.
>> > >
>> > > I don't have a running Ubuntu 26.04 distribution but I would say it
>> > > is still the
>> > > case if 26.04 is still running AppArmor.
>> > >
>> > > Users will face the same error as before which is:
>> > >
>> > >   bb.fatal("User namespaces are not usable by BitBake, possibly due
>> > > to AppArmor.\n"
>> > >            "See
>> > > https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-04-lts-noble-numbat-release-notes/39890#unprivileged-user-namespace-restrictions
>> > >  for more information.")
>> > >
>> > > In OE-Core's meta/lib/oe/sanity.py.
>> > >
>> > > This sounds like something we could say in the docs. Would you mind
>> > > sending a
>> > > patch for that?
>> >
>> >   seems to me that the proper place for this would be a "warning"
>> > admonition at the tail end of this section:
>> >
>> > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/system-requirements.html#supported-linux-distributions
>> >
>> > i wouldn't want to get into incredible detail there, just point out
>> > that starting with ubuntu 24.04, you would get that namespaces error,
>> > then refer the reader to that discourse link for the solution. does
>> > that sound adequate? i don't think the YP docs need to reproduce the
>> > solution in its entirety.
>>
>> This is important enough I think we should have it documented
>> ourselves, not externally where it could disappear.
>
>   So where should it go, and is anyone else keen on doing it? :-)

I think it should go under the "Ubuntu and Debian" section in a "warning"
admonition, as you suggested:
https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/system-requirements.html#ubuntu-and-debian

Thanks!
Antonin