On 24/11/16 17:07, Jason Zaman wrote:
That warning is harmless, i'll remove the line from the policy later.
for now ignore it or manually remove the line to silence the warning.
http://blog.perfinion.com/2016/10/selinux-userspace-26-released/

Sorry Jason, but I am not making much progress. I have emerged as you suggested with the 20151208-r6 versions (and setools4). When I repeat the search for portage_sandbox I get the same results as before:

# sesearch -s portage_sandbox_t -t portage_tmp_t -A
allow portage_sandbox_t non_auth_file_type:dir { search read lock getattr ioctl open }; allow portage_sandbox_t non_auth_file_type:file { read lock ioctl open getattr };
allow portage_sandbox_t non_auth_file_type:lnk_file { read getattr };
allow portage_sandbox_t portage_tmp_t:dir { rename search setattr read lock create reparent getattr write ioctl link rmdir remove_name unlink open add_name }; allow portage_sandbox_t portage_tmp_t:fifo_file { rename setattr read lock create getattr write ioctl link unlink open append }; allow portage_sandbox_t portage_tmp_t:file { rename execute setattr read lock create getattr execute_no_trans write relabelfrom ioctl link relabelto unlink open append }; allow portage_sandbox_t portage_tmp_t:lnk_file { rename setattr read lock create getattr write ioctl link unlink }; allow portage_sandbox_t portage_tmp_t:sock_file { rename setattr read lock create getattr write ioctl link unlink open append };

There is still no relableto/from in the dir rule. I am not sure the module rebuild worked. I tried the semodule -B again with -v and it all happens rather quickly:

# semodule -B -v
Committing changes:
libsemanage.add_user: user system_u not in password file
Ok: transaction number 0.

Doesn't seem like it spent long rebuilding all those policies, but then I wouldn't know if it is supposed to be quick?

Also, there doesn't seem to be a very easy way to confirm what policy version is in place? I once saw a listing from semodule -l that included version information but it doesn't happen on my system.

Robert

Reply via email to