Tristan Santore wrote:
On 26/11/14 18:53, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote:
> Tristan Santore wrote:
>> On 26/11/14 18:44, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote:
>>> The admin I work with and I have been updated our CentOS servers to
>>> 6.6. One server that's been running for years, with no issues (it is in
>>> permissive, also), got updated...
>>>
>>> Nov 25 17:26:56 Updated: kexec-tools-2.0.0-280.el6.x86_64
>>> <many, many, many lines of asterisks elided>
>>> Nov 26 01:10:52 Updated:
>>> selinux-policy-targeted-3.7.19-260.el6.noarch
>>> Nov 26 01:10:56 Updated: coolkey-1.1.0-32.el6.x86_64
>>>
>>> Yes, that *is* about 7.5 *hours* to install that policy. I can only
>>> guess that for some reason, it decided to relabel the *ENTIRE* system.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any idea *why*?
>> Any large SANs mounted ? Or other large data volumes ? Then it could
>> take AGES!
>>
> Nope. A RAID 1 w/ 914G, 37% used. Don't tell me it tried to do any
> NFS-mounted stuff, that I can't believe.
>
<snip RPM SPEC FILE>
%post targeted
packages=`cat /usr/share/selinux/targeted/modules.lst`
if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then
%loadpolicy targeted $packages
restorecon -R /root /var/log /var/run 2> /dev/null
else
semodule -n -s targeted -r moilscanner -r mailscanner -r gamin -r
audio_entropy -r iscsid -r polkit_auth -r polkit -r rtkit_daemon -r
ModemManager -r telepathysofiasip -r passanger -r rgmanager -r aisexec
-r corosync -r pacemaker -r amavis -r clamav -r glusterfs 2>/dev/null
%loadpolicy targeted $packages
%relabel targeted
fi
exit 0
<snip RPM SPEC FILE>
Well, I am not sure and Miroslav and Dan will have to tell you exactly
what goes on, but it does look like it tries to force a full relabel. I
got this from the spec file, but I have never built the selinux-policy
myself, so not sure which %post section actually is applied, but suspect
as that is the targeted package option, it depends on the policy being
built and packaged. I cannot seem to find the %relabel macro in the docs
anywhere though, probably looking the wrong place.
This is a DHCP server, and a number of other things, but....
Dan and Miroslav can probably also clarify if the relabel applies to
remotely mounted storage or if there is an exception there.
I hope this helps.
Thanks.
mark