Bug 1503820
| Summary: | openvswitch fails to start: PAM audit_open() failed: Permission denied | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Marcin Mirecki <mmirecki> |
| Component: | openvswitch | Assignee: | Aaron Conole <aconole> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Junhan <juyan> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 7.6-Alt | CC: | aconole, atragler, danken, dron, eedri, mkalfon, mmirecki, qding, rbost, rkhan |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-11-27 22:18:21 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: | 1482682 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1503566 | ||
|
Description
Marcin Mirecki
2017-10-18 20:33:53 UTC
Additional info:
#ls -lah /etc/openvswitch
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4.0K Oct 17 15:07 .
drwxr-xr-x. 100 root root 4.0K Oct 17 14:21 ..
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 15K Oct 17 15:07 conf.db.backup-
-rw-------. 1 root root 0 Oct 17 14:56 .conf.db.~lock~
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 163 Oct 17 14:08 default.conf
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 37 Oct 17 14:56 system-id.conf
# ovs-vsctl --version
ovs-vsctl (Open vSwitch) 2.8.90
DB Schema 7.15.1
Build from master at: commit 7468ec78853e4c82865776c6c003a64b7b8b2a5e
Build from source and installed on a fresh vm from the built rpms.
but also occurs when installed from brew build: openvswitch-2.8.0-1.el7fdb
journalctl says:
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 audit[1450]: AVC avc: denied { create } for pid=1450 comm="runuser" scontext=system_u:system_r:openvswitch_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:system_r:openvswitch_t:s0 tclass=netlink_audit_socket p
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 runuser[1450]: PAM audit_open() failed: Permission denied
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 ovs-ctl[1419]: runuser: System error
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 ovs-ctl[1419]: /etc/openvswitch/conf.db does not exist ... (warning).
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 audit[1452]: AVC avc: denied { create } for pid=1452 comm="runuser" scontext=system_u:system_r:openvswitch_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:system_r:openvswitch_t:s0 tclass=netlink_audit_socket p
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 runuser[1452]: PAM audit_open() failed: Permission denied
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 ovs-ctl[1419]: Creating empty database /etc/openvswitch/conf.db runuser: System error
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 ovs-ctl[1419]: [FAILED]
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 systemd[1]: ovsdb-server.service: Control process exited, code=exited status=1
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 audit[1]: SERVICE_START pid=1 uid=0 auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 msg='unit=ovsdb-server comm="systemd" exe="/usr/lib/systemd/systemd" hostname=? addr=? t
Oct 19 09:34:55 f25_56 systemd[1]: Failed to start Open vSwitch Database Unit.
-- Subject: Unit ovsdb-server.service has failed
-- Defined-By: systemd
-- Support: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
--
-- Unit ovsdb-server.service has failed.
If you're building from master, you should also have an openvswitch-selinux-policy rpm. Please install this - that should eliminate the selinux issues. There is currently open bz 1482682 to track those changes. I'm also curious why /etc/openvswitch and all it's parts are owned by root - was there additional configurations that you had? What are the contents of /etc/sysconfig/openvswitch - my guess is you may have some kinds of permissions problems popping up with various install / remove / upgrade paths. Forgot to set the needinfo flag. See comment #3. I've build master and installed openvswitch-selinux-policy-2.8.90-1.fc25.noarch.rpm This indeed fixes the problem! The content of the /etc/openvswitch/ and /etc/sysconfig/openvswitch dirs listed below. Keep in mind this is my dev environment, so it has quite a history of all kinds of tests and tweaks (although the problem also occured on our test envs, which are recreated from scratch every time). # ls -al /etc/openvswitch/ total 8276 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Nov 14 21:46 . drwxr-xr-x. 191 root root 12288 Nov 14 21:24 .. -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Sep 29 2016 .conf.db.tmp.~lock~ -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Nov 14 21:46 .conf.db.~lock~ -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Aug 24 2016 .ovnnb.db.~lock~ -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Aug 17 09:14 .ovnnb_db.db.tmp.~lock~ -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Jan 19 2017 .ovnnb_db.db.~lock~ -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Aug 24 2016 .ovnsb.db.~lock~ -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Aug 17 09:14 .ovnsb_db.db.tmp.~lock~ -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Jan 19 2017 .ovnsb_db.db.~lock~ -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 218948 Nov 8 14:09 conf.db -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 14185 Oct 3 2016 conf.db.backup7.13.0-2202834738 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 16868 Aug 8 18:10 conf.db.backup7.14.0-3374030633 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 7001822 Oct 5 13:06 conf.db.backup7.14.0-3974332717 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 163 Nov 14 21:25 default.conf -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 79997 Sep 29 2016 ovnnb.db -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 150696 Oct 3 14:05 ovnnb_db.db -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 18242 Aug 17 09:14 ovnnb_db.db.backup5.4.1-3485560318 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 186385 Sep 29 2016 ovnsb.db -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 504863 Oct 3 14:05 ovnsb_db.db -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 220447 Aug 17 09:14 ovnsb_db.db.backup1.9.0-2240045372 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 37 Sep 20 2016 system-id.conf # ls -al /etc/sysconfig/openvswitch -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 755 Nov 14 21:25 /etc/sysconfig/openvswitch I just noticed that none of the latest brew build include the openvswitch-selinux-policy package. The latest one as of today is: https://brewweb.engineering.redhat.com/brew/buildinfo?buildID=623960 When could we expect a build that includes this: https://brewweb.engineering.redhat.com/brew/buildinfo?buildID=623960 We don't ship our own selinux packages. RHEL uses selinux-policy package. That is being updated (see bz #1482682), but I'm not sure when it will land. Is that all that is the problem? If so, we can probably close this as duplicate of that? |