Re: selinux not allowing fuse to mount with todays f8 updates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Louis E Garcia II wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 19:58 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> Louis E Garcia II wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 16:30 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>> Louis E Garcia II wrote:
>>>>> SELinux is preventing mount (mount_t) "mount" to / (unlabeled_t).
>>>>>
>>>>> Detailed Description:
>>>>>
>>>>> SELinux denied access requested by mount. It is not expected that this
>>>>> access is
>>>>> required by mount and this access may signal an intrusion attempt. It is
>>>>> also
>>>>> possible that the specific version or configuration of the application
>>>>> is
>>>>> causing it to require additional access.
>>>>>
>>>>> Allowing Access:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can generate a local policy module to allow this access - see FAQ
>>>>> (http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/selinux-faq-fc5/#id2961385) Or you can
>>>>> disable
>>>>> SELinux protection altogether. Disabling SELinux protection is not
>>>>> recommended.
>>>>> Please file a bug report
>>>>> (http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi)
>>>>> against this package.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional Information:
>>>>>
>>>>> Source Context                system_u:system_r:mount_t:s0
>>>>> Target Context                system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0
>>>>> Target Objects                / [ filesystem ]
>>>>> Source                        mount
>>>>> Source Path                   /bin/mount
>>>>> Port                          <Unknown>
>>>>> Host                          sonlaptop
>>>>> Source RPM Packages           util-linux-ng-2.13.1-1.fc8
>>>>> Target RPM Packages           filesystem-2.4.11-1.fc8
>>>>> Policy RPM                    selinux-policy-3.0.8-87.fc8
>>>>> Selinux Enabled               True
>>>>> Policy Type                   targeted
>>>>> MLS Enabled                   True
>>>>> Enforcing Mode                Enforcing
>>>>> Plugin Name                   catchall
>>>>> Host Name                     sonlaptop
>>>>> Platform                      Linux sonlaptop 2.6.24.3-34.fc8 #1 SMP Wed
>>>>> Mar 12
>>>>>                               18:17:20 EDT 2008 i686 i686
>>>>> Alert Count                   2
>>>>> First Seen                    Thu 13 Mar 2008 10:33:41 AM EDT
>>>>> Last Seen                     Thu 13 Mar 2008 10:33:41 AM EDT
>>>>> Local ID                      e4b0a819-9224-4c5c-949d-7e34dce371d2
>>>>> Line Numbers                  
>>>>>
>>>>> Raw Audit Messages            
>>>>>
>>>>> host=sonlaptop type=AVC msg=audit(1205418821.88:27): avc:  denied
>>>>> { mount } for  pid=3419 comm="mount" name="/" dev=fusectl ino=1
>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:mount_t:s0
>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0 tclass=filesystem
>>>>>
>>>>> host=sonlaptop type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1205418821.88:27): arch=40000003
>>>>> syscall=21 success=no exit=-13 a0=b8803458 a1=b8804c90 a2=b8803f60
>>>>> a3=c0ed0001 items=0 ppid=3407 pid=3419 auid=500 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0
>>>>> suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts1 comm="mount"
>>>>> exe="/bin/mount" subj=system_u:system_r:mount_t:s0 key=(null)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> fusectl should be labeled in this release.  Not sure why you are
>>>> seeing this.
>>> I have downgraded to fuse-2.7.0-8 just to test but this release also
>>> does not start. I noticed that in this release:
>>> -rwsr-xr-x  root fuse
>>> system_u:object_r:fusermount_exec_t:s0 /bin/fusermount
>>>
>>> as with the updated release fuse-2.7.3-2
>>> -rwsr-xr-x  root root
>>> system_u:object_r:fusermount_exec_t:s0 /bin/fusermount
>>>
>>> I do not remember if the policy also was updated. I changed the group to
>>> fuse with no effect.
>>>
>>> I'm the only one seeing this?
>>>
>>> -Louis
>>>
>> Looks like the fix was added after selinux-policy-3.0.8-87.fc8
>>
>> Please update to the latest policy in Fedora 8.
> 
> selinux-policy-3.0.8-87.fc8 is the current release as of
> today. /updates/testing has selinux-policy-3.0.8-93.fc8 which
> fixed the problem.
> 
> -Louis
> 
> 
I release 91 but the fedora infrastructure seems to be bolixed.  I will
ping them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkfadDYACgkQrlYvE4MpobNlLwCdFd4CQV+DykDRZRAbkaigGP7n
CpQAoJUS6Ysd+xtknoXgZM0/4FZLGAle
=5Sdm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux