[cyphar]

> The cascade of AppArmor configs seemed to focus quite a bit on access to `/proc` and `/sys` so I think I mixed that up cgroups with my comments about memory access.

Funnily enough that is a good example of how fickle AppArmor's protections are -- if you give containers mount privileges (needed to enable container nesting and most system container usecases) you can bypass most (if not all) AppArmor path rules because you can create alternative mounts that don't match the ones in the rules. With the fsopen(2) and open_tree(2) mount APIs, it's even easier -- AppArmor uses d_path to compute the path for policy purposes but detached mounts for procfs do not have a /proc prefix in their d_path form!

My general impression is SELinux is better as it applies to objects directly, but we've had security issues with it too.