>>>> Personally, I'm not thrilled by the idea of
sticking in dontaudit rules
>>>> to quiet complaints at boot time that are caused by directories that
>>>> are mislabelled.
>>> Why not?
>> I can't speak for Valdis, but for me the word
"kludge" comes to mind.
> It's not a kludge. The purpose of dontaudit rules is to
prevent auditing of
> operations that are not permitted, not interesting, and expected to happen.
> This is exactly the situation.
You say that dontaudit rules are to cover the following
1. Not permitted.
2. Not interesting.
3. Expected to happen.
That's not what's going on here and using dontaudit is a kludge. The
OP is stating that *mount points* for /usr, /usr/local, and
/usr/share are generating complaints because they're not properly
labled prior to being mounted. These are the directories themselves
and not directories that are hidden by the mount. This is
"interesting" and "not expected to happen," failing points 2 and 3.
Regardless if the fix can be automated or not, telling the system to
"just ignore it" is inappropriate IMO.
One thing I have noticed is that dontaudit messages occasionally get in
the way when trying to modify the policy. When using the strict policy,
I've had a few situations where something was denied by SELinux but
not audited and I had trouble determining what rules where blocking