Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On 07/09/13 20:16, Cristian Sava wrote: > > Yes, you're right. Thank you for the fix. > Why selinux is not complaining with an AVC? > Problem is now fixed in selinux-policy-3.12.1-62.fc19. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=432416 To get the early download. -- The only thing

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On 07/09/13 22:00, Ed Greshko wrote: > Heading over to bugzilla now. This appears to be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975695 The same error message noted in this thread are in the bugzilla. I think there is no need create a new one. -- The only thing worse than a poorly ask

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On 07/09/13 21:51, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > On 07/09/2013 08:24 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > > On 07/09/13 20:16, Cristian Sava wrote: > >> Yes, you're right. Thank you for the fix. Why selinux is not complaining > >> with an AVC? > > > I do not know the answer to that. I'll see if I can figure it out,

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/09/2013 08:24 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 07/09/13 20:16, Cristian Sava wrote: >> Yes, you're right. Thank you for the fix. Why selinux is not complaining >> with an AVC? > > I do not know the answer to that. I'll see if I can figure it out, and

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On 07/09/13 20:16, Cristian Sava wrote: > Yes, you're right. Thank you for the fix. > Why selinux is not complaining with an AVC? I do not know the answer to that. I'll see if I can figure it out, and if not file a bugzilla. Welcome. Ed -- The only thing worse than a poorly asked question i

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 18:52 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Well, I find one thing interesting. > > Notice the error message > > fail2ban-client[2804]: ERROR Directory /var/run/fail2ban exists but not > accessible for writing > > But, if you execute the command in the service file from the

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On 07/09/13 18:19, Cristian Sava wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 16:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > >> Have you checked /var/log/audit/audit.log for AVC (selinux) entries? > No AVC messages, not selinux related bug. It is a networking subsystem > problem. > Well, I find one thing interesting. No

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 16:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Have you checked /var/log/audit/audit.log for AVC (selinux) entries? No AVC messages, not selinux related bug. It is a networking subsystem problem. C. Sava -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscr

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 07/09/13 15:48, sguazt wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Cristian Sava cs...@central.ucv.ro>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:48 +0300, Cristian Sava wrote: > > > On installs where iface reported by "rou

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On 07/09/13 15:48, sguazt wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Cristian Sava > wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:48 +0300, Cristian Sava wrote: > > On installs where iface reported by "route" command is not the same with > > ifcfg-iface (pxpy in

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Cristian Sava wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:48 +0300, Cristian Sava wrote: > > On installs where iface reported by "route" command is not the same with > > ifcfg-iface (pxpy instead of enpxsy or ethx) fail2ban will not start. > > Does not matter if biosdevname=

Re: networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:48 +0300, Cristian Sava wrote: > On installs where iface reported by "route" command is not the same with > ifcfg-iface (pxpy instead of enpxsy or ethx) fail2ban will not start. > Does not matter if biosdevname=0 or net.ifnames=0 on the kernel line. > Tested this on real ha

networking - fail2ban will not start on some installs (x64)

On installs where iface reported by "route" command is not the same with ifcfg-iface (pxpy instead of enpxsy or ethx) fail2ban will not start. Does not matter if biosdevname=0 or net.ifnames=0 on the kernel line. Tested this on real hardware and on VirualBox too. From /var/log/messages: fail2ban-c