On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 11:01 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 10/09/2010 11:30 AM, Dominick Grift wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 09:14:25AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 11:43 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
>>> Why is /dev/hugepages specified to be labeled hugetlbfs_t? Any
>>> particular reason for this?
>>> In my branch i labelled it device_t like most directories in /dev.
>>> This makes it easier because udev does some magic
>>> in /lib/udev/devices(hugetables) which causes all kinds of extra
>>> denials if i label the hugepages dir hugetlbfs_t.
>>> For example hugetlbfs_t must associate to device_t etc. Much easier to
>>> just label hugepages directories at both /dev/hugepage
>>> and /lib/udev/devices/hugepages device_t.
>>> Also i noticed that /sys/fs/cgroup is specified to be labeled
>>> cgroup_t, but i think the kernel creates that directory with type
>>> sysfs_t. So that would mean that it needs to be restored at each
>> /dev/hugepages and (I think) /sys/fs/cgroup are filesystem mount points
>> not actually files in the devfs or sysfs filesystem. So the labels are
>> picked probably picked up from the filesystem labeling rules at mount
>> time rather than from a later restorecon.
> In my branch i have the directory /dev/hugepages set to device_t and this location
is labelled properly (udev or dracut did it?)
> Unlike /sys/fs/cgroup directory which is set to cgroup_t but this location is not
labelled properly (sysfs_t instead of specified cgroup_t)
>> As to whether we need or want such labels on hugetlbfs and cgroupfs I'll
>> let you and Dan argue about :)
I think the problem is running tools like restorecon on /dev to
labels. ends up generating errors when hugetlbfs and cgroupfs are
mounted. I guess we could change the label to <<none>>
/dev/shm has the same problem.
But isn't /dev/shm just a normal tmpfs, not a special FS like cgroupfs
or hugepagefs? I'm not saying the <<none>> isn't the right answer
things under /dev/shm/ but it's not exactly the same problem....