--- On Fri, 4/20/12, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812100 > To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" <test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Antonio Olivares" <olivares14031@xxxxxxxxx>, "Selinux List at Fedora Project" <selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Friday, April 20, 2012, 5:37 AM > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Somehow /etc/ld.so.cache file got mislabeled? Was this an > initial install? > Install from livecd? Installed from nightly build before rc4 and/or beta was released. > Running restorecon on /etc/ld.so.cache > will fix the > label, as the setroubleshoot tells you. Does the file become > mislabeled again? Will try it later tonight and see what happens. > > > If we could figure out how it got mislabeled we would gladly > fixed it, if we > get one bug from one person reporting a file is mislabeled, > and do not hear > about it from others, we assume it is a one off and tell the > user to follow > what setroubleshoot told them to do. If we see it repeatedly > or from multiple > users we will do our best to investigate what is going on. > > We have a rule in policy now that says if any unconfined > domain creates this > file it will get labeled correctly, This include > unconfined_t, initrc_t, > rpm_t, rpm_script_t. So I do not know how it got mislabeled. > Does the file > first get created with a different name and then renamed to > /etc/ld.so.cache_t? > Regards, Antonio -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
