Add support for managing AppArmor profiles inside a Sysbox container
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Shell
- Stars
- 3.9k
- Forks
- 230
- Avg merge
- 7h 48m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
Hi - I have been trying to install AppArmor inside privileged ubuntu containers within a sysbox container.
here are the steps followed:
-
create a base sysbox container called "host01" -- uses an image that contains systemd, docker, and the K8s.io KinD tool
-
Create a privileged container inside host01
root@host01:/# docker run --privileged -d --name ubuntu ubuntu:18.04 sleep 10000
342b0bb3de09e2d9ced0d1636d9bef2ebc33542365258b9a4a5c1576f06067cf
root@host01:/# docker exec -ti 342 bash
root@342b0bb3de09:/#
-
Install AppArmor package
-
aa-status shows filesystem not mounted
root@342b0bb3de09:/# aa-status
apparmor module is loaded.
apparmor filesystem is not mounted.
root@342b0bb3de09:/# mount | grep securityfs
root@342b0bb3de09:/#
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Reproduce the nested-container steps using a privileged ubuntu:18.04 container, then inspect how Sysbox handles securityfs and AppArmor-related mounts. Done means the inner container can install AppArmor and aa-status reports that the AppArmor filesystem is mounted.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- docker, linux, ubuntu
- Domain
- infrastructure, security
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100