On 07/30/2009 11:17 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Since we can now safely use restorecon -R / on kernels >= 2.6.30 without
> concern about restorecon descending into filesystems that do not support
> labeling, I wanted to compare it against running setfiles on the list of
> filesystems that support labeling. I noticed a significant difference
> in performance that I traced to the use of realpath() when setfiles is
> called as restorecon.
>
> When called as restorecon, setfiles calls realpath() so that sequences
> like:
> cd /etc
> restorecon shadow gshadow
> will work as expected.
>
> This patch changes the logic to only apply realpath() if the pathname is
> relative, which covers the above case. However, if a user runs
> restorecon /a/b/c and any of the components is a symlink, restorecon
> won't apply realpath after this patch and thus may not match the correct
> file contexts entry. Thoughts?
>
> diff --git a/policycoreutils/setfiles/setfiles.c b/policycoreutils/setfiles/setfiles.c
> index 5e5d957..996d230 100644
> --- a/policycoreutils/setfiles/setfiles.c
> +++ b/policycoreutils/setfiles/setfiles.c
> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ int match(const char *name, struct stat *sb, char **con)
> {
> char path[PATH_MAX + 1];
>
> - if (expand_realpath) {
> + if (expand_realpath && name[0] != '/') {
> if (S_ISLNK(sb->st_mode)) {
> if (verbose > 1)
> fprintf(stderr,
>
>
The place where this is a problem is
restorecon -Rv /etc/init.d
versus
restorecon -Rv /etc/rc.d/init.d
What happens to the labeling?
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
