On 07/22/18 13:32, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 07/21/2018 10:20 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: >> On 07/21/2018 06:57 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: >>> This makes a rule for that specific PID which becomes invalid the next time >>> it >>> starts up. If you've been doing this regularly, I would suggest removing >>> the old >>> modules. >> >> How do I do that? What modules are you speaking of? > > You deleted the part I was quoting: > > >> I have an SE Linux alert that keeps coming back and back. > >> > >> # ausearch -c 'geoclue' --raw | audit2allow -M my-geoclue > >> # semodule -X 300 -i my-geoclue.pp > >> > >> Gets rid of it for a day. > > Actually, I think I'm wrong. From checking the man page, I see that command > should replace the previous version, so you only have one installed. I think > you > can run "semodule -r my-geoclue" to remove the module later. The "module" is > the > selinux policy module that you created and installed with those commands. >
I think it bears mentioning that if the alert that is generated is different each time the program is run due to a different PID that doing install/removal of a local policy seems a bit tedious. Since geoclue is supplied by Fedora one would expect it to run without doing that. So, a BZ should be filed. Yes? Or am I missing something? -- Conjecture is just a conclusion based on incomplete information. It isn't a fact.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DENBSELBID4V7RCK4UGZPFNVWDDKIOXD/
