Aleksey Nogin wrote:
On 18.05.2004 19:22, Gary Peck wrote:
> For some reason restorecon and setfiles have different notions of what
> context certain files should be. For example:
[...]
> So, restorecon thinks that *.so files should be shlib_t, whereas
> setfiles thinks they should be lib_t. Which one is right and why do they
> disagree? I thought that they both get their context info from the same
> place.
It seems the two disagree on symlinks. May be restorecon forgets to
check whether its argument is a symlink?
Looks like a bug in matchpathcon (Which is used buy restorecon). It is
returning the wrong security context. I will send this to stephen.
Basically looks like it is ignoring file type.
Dan