Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812100
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Somehow /etc/ld.so.cache file got mislabeled? Was this an initial install? Install from livecd? Running restorecon on /etc/ld.so.cache will fix the label, as the setroubleshoot tells you. Does the file become mislabeled again? If we could figure out how it got mislabeled we would gladly fixed it, if we get one bug from one person reporting a file is mislabeled, and do not hear about it from others, we assume it is a one off and tell the user to follow what setroubleshoot told them to do. If we see it repeatedly or from multiple users we will do our best to investigate what is going on. We have a rule in policy now that says if any unconfined domain creates this file it will get labeled correctly, This include unconfined_t, initrc_t, rpm_t, rpm_script_t. So I do not know how it got mislabeled. Does the file first get created with a different name and then renamed to /etc/ld.so.cache_t? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+RWJcACgkQrlYvE4MpobMJRgCdENsp4rd6tb/UFfjIam52Ky8Z Z18AoLhxWV9Sx9bs5xODr6TMVEYehH9H =kMEl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812100
--- On Fri, 4/20/12, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com wrote: From: Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com Subject: Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812100 To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases test@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Antonio Olivares olivares14...@yahoo.com, Selinux List at Fedora Project seli...@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Friday, April 20, 2012, 5:37 AM -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Somehow /etc/ld.so.cache file got mislabeled? Was this an initial install? Install from livecd? Installed from nightly build before rc4 and/or beta was released. Running restorecon on /etc/ld.so.cache will fix the label, as the setroubleshoot tells you. Does the file become mislabeled again? Will try it later tonight and see what happens. If we could figure out how it got mislabeled we would gladly fixed it, if we get one bug from one person reporting a file is mislabeled, and do not hear about it from others, we assume it is a one off and tell the user to follow what setroubleshoot told them to do. If we see it repeatedly or from multiple users we will do our best to investigate what is going on. We have a rule in policy now that says if any unconfined domain creates this file it will get labeled correctly, This include unconfined_t, initrc_t, rpm_t, rpm_script_t. So I do not know how it got mislabeled. Does the file first get created with a different name and then renamed to /etc/ld.so.cache_t? Regards, Antonio -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812100
-- I have just reopened the bug. Thank you very much sir. I appreciate your help and Dan's as well. Regards, Antonio -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812100
Running restorecon on /etc/ld.so.cache will fix the label, as the setroubleshoot tells you. Does the file become mislabeled again? Will try it later tonight and see what happens. Nothing good happens seatroubleshooter appears with same sealert :( This is definitely a bug I tried to send this message but the lxde panel crashed, then I lost connection :(, sending now later after seveal hours :( Best Regards, Antonio -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
