I previously posted this to the selinux list but the suggestion was made that I might get a better (quicker) response on this list. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533427 was first reported 6 November and on 6 November Dan Walsh reported that the problem was fixed in selinux-policy-3.6.32-42.fc12.noarch WHERE IS selinux-policy-3.6.32-42.fc12.noarch ???? Today is 18 November. This update (or a later/more-recent version) has not appeared in either updates or updates-testing for F12. selinux-policy-3.6.32-46.fc12 is currently "queued for updates-testing but has yet to be added. The problem in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533427 impacts the abrt package's ability to function properly. The abrt package is a really good new feature in Fedora 12 and should help resolve problems more quickly since it provides a lot more information than many users include in the handcrafted reports (myself included). Dan Walsh has pointed out that: >abrt_t is a permissive domain. >node=(removed) type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1257529975.949:596): arch=40000003 >syscall=39 success=yes exit=0 a0=9779660 a1=1ed a2=38f6868 a3=9259050 items=0 >ppid=17113 pid=17114 auid=500 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 >fsgid=0 tty=(none) ses=2 comm="yum" exe="/usr/bin/python" >subj=unconfined_u:system_r:abrt_t:s0 key=(null) >If you look at the AVC you will see success=yes. Which indicates that the >AVC did not block anything. So if abrt is not working properly for some >reason, it is not SELinux causing the problem. SO the lack of the selinux update may not be the problem with abrt's inability to get debuginfo packages so that it can generate a meaningful backtrace. I do believe that it has been a bit long in getting an update out for selinux- policy. Gene -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
