| Summary: | selinux targeted policy is blocking spice-vdagent | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | bodhi.zazen <bodhi.zazen> |
| Component: | selinux-policy-targeted | Assignee: | Miroslav Grepl <mgrepl> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Ben Levenson <benl> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 16 | CC: | dwalsh, hdegoede |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | selinux-policy-3.10.0-64.fc16 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-12-06 01:05:35 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
This seems to be somewhat similar to this previous bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648553 I am not, however, getting any additional AVC denials, even if I put selinux into permissive mode or if I look for silent denials with semodule -DB With selinux in enforcing mode I get: spice-vdagent -x Missing virtio device: /dev/virtio-ports/com.redhat.spice.0 With selinux in permissive mode , spice-vdagent works. Spice vdagent works for unconfined users, but not gdm. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers Are you playing with MCS? Hans, is /dev/virtio-ports/com.redhat.spice.0 something new? (In reply to comment #2) > Hans, > is /dev/virtio-ports/com.redhat.spice.0 something new? For the per user session agent process, yes, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737790#c12 Ah, I missed "/dev/virtio-ports/com.redhat.spice.0 (which is a symlink to a /dev/vport#p#)" @Miroslav Grepl and Hans de Goede - thank you both for looking at this problem. I was using MCS for a while, but I have removed it now and spice-vdagent behaves the same with a fresh install - not working with confined users. Miroslav we figured out he needed term_use_virtio_console(staff_t) Can you add this to userdom.if In RHEL6, F15, F16. "we" is a HUGE stretch, thank you for your assistance, as always, Daniel user_u also please =) Added. selinux-policy-3.10.0-64.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/selinux-policy-3.10.0-64.fc16 Package selinux-policy-3.10.0-64.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing selinux-policy-3.10.0-64.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16698/selinux-policy-3.10.0-64.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback). selinux-policy-3.10.0-64.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |
Description of problem: selinux targeted policy is blocking spice-vdagent with confined users Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Confine your users (as staff_u or user_u ) Steps to Reproduce: 1. Confine your users (as staff_u or user_u ) 2. Login (start spice-vdagent) 3. Actual results: Spice vdagent does not start Expected results: spice vdagent starts Additional info: AVC denial type=AVC msg=audit(1322278140.911:69): avc: denied { read } for pid=2562 comm="spice-vdagentd" name="ld.so.cache" dev=dm-1 ino=136265 scontext=system_u:system_r:vdagent_t:s0 tcontext=staff_u:object_r:ld_so_cache_t:s0:c0.c256 tclass=file Was caused by: Policy constraint violation. May require adding a type attribute to the domain or type to satisfy the constraint. Constraints are defined in the policy sources in policy/constraints (general), policy/mcs (MCS), and policy/mls (MLS). I do not know how to write a local policy for this constraint violation and am no further along despite a google search.