On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:34 +0200, dragoran wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:17 +0200, dragoran wrote:
> >
> >> dragoran wrote:
> >>
> >>> dragoran wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Paul Howarth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:28 +0200, dragoran wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> dragoran wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> dragoran wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> audit(1147793154.831:353): avc: denied { execute_no_trans }
> >>>>>>>> for pid=5195 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 ino=8061163
> >>>>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>>>> audit(1147793154.831:354): avc: denied { execute_no_trans }
> >>>>>>>> for pid=5196 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 ino=8061163
> >>>>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>>>> audit(1147793155.019:355): avc: denied { execute_no_trans }
> >>>>>>>> for pid=5197 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 ino=8061163
> >>>>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>>>> audit(1147793155.447:356): avc: denied { execute_no_trans }
> >>>>>>>> for pid=5198 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 ino=8061163
> >>>>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>>>> audit(1147793156.255:357): avc: denied { execute_no_trans }
> >>>>>>>> for pid=5199 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 ino=8061163
> >>>>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>>>> I am using FC5 with selinux-policy-targeted-2.2.36-2.fc5
> >>>>>>>> whats gonig on? is a file misslabeled or is this a policy bug?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list mailing list
> >>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> hello?
> >>>>>>> any solution for this problem?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> it happend again...
> >>>>>> am I the only one seeing this?
> >>>>>> audit(1148393411.538:2907): avc: denied { execute_no_trans } for
> >>>>>> pid=16856 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 ino=8060939
> >>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>> audit(1148393411.794:2908): avc: denied { execmod } for
> >>>>>> pid=16859 comm="ld-linux.so.2" name="libGLcore.so.1.0.8762" dev=md0
> >>>>>> ino=29797475 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>> tcontext=root:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>> audit(1148393411.814:2909): avc: denied { execmod } for
> >>>>>> pid=16860 comm="ld-linux.so.2" name="libnvidia-tls.so.1.0.8762"
> >>>>>> dev=md0 ino=30869146 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>> tcontext=root:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>> audit(1148393412.438:2910): avc: denied { unlink } for pid=13702
> >>>>>> comm="prelink" name="prelink.cache" dev=md0 ino=7012828
> >>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0
> >>>>>> tcontext=user_u:object_r:etc_t:s0 tclass=file
> >>>>>> prelink seems to be completly broken and nobody seems to notice it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not seeing this anywhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps it's because /lib/ld-2.4.so is lib_t rather than ld_so_t on
> >>>>> your
> >>>>> system?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> ls -Z /lib/ld-2.4.so
> >>>> -rwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:ld_so_t
> >>>> /lib/ld-2.4.so
> >>>> ls -Z /lib64/ld-2.4.so
> >>>> -rwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:lib_t
> >>>> seems that you are correct lets hope that this wont happen again.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> fedora-selinux-list mailing list
> >>>> fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> this *is* a bug
> >>> restorecon /lib64/ld-2.4.so
> >>> does not change it to ld_so_t (had to do a chcon)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I did a complete relabel and the result is
> >> ls -Z /lib64/ld-2.4.so
> >> -rwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:lib_t
> >> /lib64/ld-2.4.so
> >>
> >
> > The context line that *should* match this appears to be:
> > /lib(64)?(/.*)?/ld-[^/]*\.so(\.[^/]*)* regular file
> > system_u:object_r:ld_so_t:s0
> >
> > But this appears to be overruled by one of these:
> > /lib(/.*)? all files
> > system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0
> > /lib64(/.*)? all files
> > system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0
> >
> > I'm not sure what it is that decides which is the best match. The top
> > one is longer and appears to me to be more specific, but it does have
> > more wildcards in it...
> >
> >
> >> I also noticed this:
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:bin_t bin
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:boot_t boot
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:device_t dev
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:etc_t etc
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:home_root_t home
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:lib_t lib
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:lib_t lib64
> >> drwx------ root root system_u:object_r:lost_found_t lost+found
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:mnt_t media
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:mnt_t misc
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:mnt_t mnt
> >> dr-xr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:mnt_t net
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:usr_t opt
> >> dr-xr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:proc_t proc
> >> drwxr-x--- root root root:object_r:user_home_dir_t root
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:sbin_t sbin
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:security_t selinux
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:var_t srv
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:sysfs_t sys
> >> drwxrwxrwt root root system_u:object_r:tmp_t tmp
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:usr_t usr
> >> drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:var_t var
> >> looks incorrect too whats going on here?
> >>
> >
> > Looks like mine. What do you think is wrong with this? Nothing stands
> > out to me.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> root:object_r:user_home_dir_t root should be /home and
> system_u:object_r:home_root_t home should be /root something weird is going on here...
I disagree. I think these are correct.
/root is the home directory for user "root" and should be
user_home_dir_t, just like any other user's home directory.
/home is the root of the "home" directory tree, where most user home
directories live, so home_root_t seems OK for that.
Perhaps it's just the names of the context types that are confusing?
Paul.
--
fedora-selinux-list mailing list
fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
