Re: setroub;eshoot problem
max wrote:
Steve wrote:
>
>> ---- max <maximilianbianco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 2 - The only other sane thing I could advise you too do is bounce
>>> your question off the fedora-selinux list. I would include a
>>> reference to this thread and all the relevant details. The kernel
>>> your running, the policy version (rpm -qa | grep
>>> selinux...setrouble) , setroubleshoot version, the error messages
>>> below , and that you run in permissive and used preupgrade to go
>>> from f8 to f9.
>>> This will ensure that the right people see your message, this list
>>> is also monitored but I think when they get busy fedora-selinux is
>>> likely to still get checked more often than fedora-list.
>> I was trying to avoid this. I already get several hundred e-mails per
>> day and I would guess that the selinux list is pretty busy too. Oh
>> well, I'll just have to deal with it for a while.
>
> I found this in the SELinux list archives:
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/SELinux/list-archive/0801/thread_body36.cfm
>
> which appears to say there was a problem but it was fixed in a patch.
> I wonder if it has not made it to F9 yet?
>
> Steve
It could be related but they seem to have been running mls policy which
is not the default policy in f9. I think the patch would have made it
into F9 by now, the thread dates back to January and F9 released in May
if memory serves. I think in the end you will have to rebuild the
policy. The only way that I know of to change the handle_unknown=deny to
allow is at policy build time. This is set to allow in F8 and F9. Why
yours is not this way is something I don't understand, unless mine is
screwed up somehow but I doubt it. I have looked at two f9 boxes and an
f8 box. All of them have the handle_unknown=allow. Maybe a third party
could confirm this :
dmesg | grep -i selinux
Use the Force,
Max
Steve,
Try semodule -B . It had completely slipped past me. It will force a
rebuild and reload of policy.
Checkout man semodule.
Max
--
Fortune favors the BOLD