Bug 1318645

Summary: Missing SeLinux policy
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Florin Asavoaie <florin.asavoaie>
Component: selinux-policyAssignee: Miroslav Grepl <mgrepl>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 7.3CC: dledford, florin.asavoaie, lvrabec, mgrepl, mmalik, plautrba, pvrabec, ssekidde, xni
Target Milestone: rcFlags: florin.asavoaie: needinfo?
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-03-17 15:57:11 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Florin Asavoaie 2016-03-17 12:31:56 UTC 
Description of problem:

mdadm not allowed to search /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

mdadm-3.3.2-7.el7.x86_64
selinux-policy-targeted-3.13.1-60.el7_2.3.noarch

How reproducible:

In my case, I have a RAID 1 volume with Intel RST, managed by mdadm. When I do "fdisk /dev/md126" and then hit "w" to save changes, even if I did not change anything, I get an Audit alert that mdadm is denied to access /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/.

Was not able to check if it is reproducible with other types of RAID arrays created with mdadm or anything.

Here is the output of audit2allow:

[root@pc ~]# audit2allow -a
#============= mdadm_t ==============
allow mdadm_t efivarfs_t:dir search;

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Check the previous section.

Actual results:

Selinux denies access to mdadm to something that appears to be required.

Expected results:

mdadm is able to access all the hardware and other information it needs.

Additional info:

I am not able to detect what functional issues are caused by this behavior, I only noticed the audit notification.
Comment 2 Jes Sorensen 2016-03-17 14:46:00 UTC 
This is an selinux-policy problem rather than mdadm - reassigning to the
correct package.

Jes
Comment 4 Lukas Vrabec 2016-03-17 15:57:11 UTC 
Milos is right.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1291801 ***
Comment 5 Florin Asavoaie 2016-03-17 16:04:27 UTC 
Guys, I don't seem to be able to access that bug. What is its status please?