Change:
return nil } <del> // Verify that the profile is valid and loaded. func validateProfile(profile string, loadedProfiles map[string]bool) error { if err := ValidateProfileFormat(profile); err != nil { return err } if strings.HasPrefix(profile, v1.AppArmorBetaProfileNamePrefix) { profileName := strings.TrimPrefix(profile, v1.AppArmorBetaProfileNamePrefix) if !loadedProfiles[profileName] { return fmt.Errorf("profile %q is not loaded", profileName) } } return nil } </del> // ValidateProfileFormat checks the format of the profile. func ValidateProfileFormat(profile string) error { if profile == "" || profile == v1.AppArmorBetaProfileRuntimeDefault || profile == v1.AppArmorBetaProfileNameUnconfined {

Discussion:
What happened: Pods with invalid container-level seccomp profiles allow its init containers to be executed. Pods with unloaded apparmor profiles blocks the entire pod. What you expected to happen: Consistency between both. In one hand AppArmor blocks all pod execution regardless of the containers having or not a profile attached to it. On the other, Seccomp allows for an init container to deploy its own profile - as currently done on . How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): Apply the yaml below: Resulting in only the init container from the being executed: ! Anything else we need to know?: AppArmor is currently being target to GA on 1.21 (). Environment: Kubernetes version (use ): Client Version: version.Info{Major:"1", Minor:"20", GitVersion:"v1.20.0", GitCommit:"", GitTreeState:"clean", BuildDate:"2020-12-08T17:59:43Z", GoVersion:"go1.15.5", Compiler:"gc", Platform:"linux/amd64"} Server Version: version.Info{Major:"1", Minor:"21+", GitVersion:"v1.21.0-alpha.0.292+", GitCommit:"", GitTreeState:"clean", BuildDate:"2020-12-12T23:13:21Z", GoVersion:"go1.15.6", Compiler:"gc", Platform:"linux/amd64"} Cloud provider or hardware configuration: OS (e.g: ): Kernel (e.g. ):Install tools: Network plugin and version (if this is a network-related bug): Others: /sig node /area security
/cc
/sig security /triage accepted
I think we can consider this as a bug, right? Then we could work on a fix for v1.21 interdependently of the AppArmor GA graduation.
Sounds like a good plan :+1:
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with .

Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Mark this issue or PR as rotten with Close this issue or PR with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale [1]:
/remove-lifecycle stale
/assign