Bug 1460481
Summary: | SELinux avoids writing to tlp-related /run/tlp/lock_tlp (via ethtool and iw) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla> |
Component: | selinux-policy | Assignee: | Lukas Vrabec <lvrabec> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Milos Malik <mmalik> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 7.3 | CC: | cww, dapospis, lvrabec, mgrepl, mmalik, plautrba, pvrabec, redhat-bugzilla, seb, ssekidde, zpytela |
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-10-30 10:00:43 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: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1477664 |
Description
Robert Scheck
2017-06-11 01:14:30 UTC
We're going to close this bug as WONTFIX because * of limited capacity of selinux-policy developers * the bug is related to EPEL component or 3rd party SW only * the bug appears in unsupported configuration We believe this bug can be fixed via a local policy module. For more information please see: * https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/selinux_users_and_administrators_guide/sect-security-enhanced_linux-troubleshooting-fixing_problems#sect-Security-Enhanced_Linux-Fixing_Problems-Allowing_Access_audit2allow If you disagree, please re-open the bug. We're going to close this bug as WONTFIX because * of limited capacity of selinux-policy developers * the bug is related to EPEL component or 3rd party SW only * the bug appears in unsupported configuration We believe this bug can be fixed via a local policy module. For more information please see: * https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/selinux_users_and_administrators_guide/sect-security-enhanced_linux-troubleshooting-fixing_problems#sect-Security-Enhanced_Linux-Fixing_Problems-Allowing_Access_audit2allow If you disagree, please re-open the bug. (In reply to Lukas Vrabec from comment #4) > We're going to close this bug as WONTFIX because > > * of limited capacity of selinux-policy developers > * the bug is related to EPEL component or 3rd party SW only > * the bug appears in unsupported configuration > > We believe this bug can be fixed via a local policy module. > For more information please see: > > * > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/ > html/selinux_users_and_administrators_guide/sect-security-enhanced_linux- > troubleshooting-fixing_problems#sect-Security-Enhanced_Linux-Fixing_Problems- > Allowing_Access_audit2allow > > If you disagree, please re-open the bug. I am sorry, but this is not acceptable at all! RHEL ships the SELinux policy and covers with it 3rd party software. This is the old discussion, I already had with Dan Walsh years ago. From my point of view, Red Hat either needs to fix the SELinux policy when shipping policy modules affecting any 3rd party software, or ship a reduced set of the SELinux policy to only cover exactly the software shipped in RHEL. But as of writing, RHEL ships a SELinux policy covering both, but with the point that you, Red Hat, are now obviously even reluctant to fix issues in packages that are shipped with your product, RHEL. Cross-filed ticket 01951073 on the Red Hat customer portal. Robert, let's discuss how we can help you with this bugzilla. The point is that we are not able to support all 3rd party SW or EPEL pkgs from SELinux point of view even if there is a connection to the RHEL distribution policy. If we ship a policy for a service we are not able to predict that it affects or will affect 3rd party SW or EPEL in all cases. What can we do? We can help you with writing a local policy using our documentation, tools or discussions. Or we can cooperate on writing a new policy for tlp (if it makes sense) via pull requests on https://github.com/fedora-selinux. Often the point is the transition between confined and unconfined, right? I would like to see a better more general approach in such cases, rather writing yet another SELinux module/policy for yet another third party software. A confined domain leads to negative impact to an unconfined domain in this case. I personally even do not care that tlp is running unconfined, but SELinux does once it uses ethtool etc. And this is what I treat as issue. Not solved as per selinux-policy-3.13.1-192.el7_5.3 :-( Not solved in selinux-policy-3.14.1-32.fc28.noarch Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:3111 |