Re: restorecon vs. setfiles

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

 



Stephen Smalley wrote:

On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 12:34, Gary Peck wrote:


Looks like a similar bug might be present in rpm, or at least the end
result is similar. Whenever I install new RPM's from Rawhide, *.so*
files get installed with object_r:lib_t context. If I run
"/sbin/fixfiles restore" right afterward, they get relabeled back to
object_r:shlib_t.  Either rpm has an old policy version on the Rawhide
build machines, or it's not labeling files correctly.

Also, the dev package in Rawhide comes with all files labeled as
object_r:device_t. After running fixfiles, some of those get relabeled
to the correct object_r:fixed_disk_device_t, object_r:tty_device_t,
object_r:sound_device_t, etc. dev should have the correct contexts to
begin with. Various files in /usr/sbin also don't have the correct
contexts as shipped in the RPM's.

This is all with selinux-policy-targeted-1.13.8-1,
policycoreutils-1.13.3-2, and rpm-4.3.2-0.4.



I don't believe that rpm is computing file contexts at package build time anymore, since there are multiple policies (strict and targeted) now. It should instead compute the file contexts when unpacking the package based on your local file_contexts configuration, whose path is obtained from /usr/lib/rpm/macros using /etc/selinux/config to determine the active policy. It seems to be working for me.



Any chance the so files are getting created in a post install script? rpm should be working the same as restorecon and setfiles.

Dan

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux