-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
spoc: only include abstract policy in recorded apparmor profiles #2428
Conversation
this unbreaks spoc-based workflows, refs kubernetes-sigs#2388
Hi @mhils. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2428 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 45.50% 41.85% -3.65%
==========================================
Files 79 109 +30
Lines 7782 16013 +8231
==========================================
+ Hits 3541 6702 +3161
- Misses 4099 8814 +4715
- Partials 142 497 +355 |
/ok-to-test Thank you! |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mhils, saschagrunert The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR unbreaks some spoc-related workflows. Profiles recorded by spoc should only have an abstract profile.
spoc convert
can be used to render the raw AppArmor template.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
refs #2388
Does this PR have test?
N/A
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?