Bug 973156

Summary:	/etc/yaboot.conf (bootloader_t) is symlink pointing to file with type boot_t
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Michal Trunecka <mtruneck>
Component:	selinux-policy	Assignee:	Miroslav Grepl <mgrepl>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Michal Trunecka <mtruneck>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.5	CC:	dwalsh, ebenes, mmalik
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	selinux-policy-3.7.19-210.el6	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-11-21 10:31:04 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:

Description Michal Trunecka 2013-06-11 11:49:52 UTC

Description of problem:
Because of Bug 813803 the /etc/yaboot.conf was labeled as bootloader_t, but on ppc64 (the only arch this file matters) it's a symlink pointing to /boot/etc/yaboot.conf with type boot_t.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
selinux-policy-3.7.19-195.el6.noarch

Comment 1 Daniel Walsh 2013-06-20 17:38:30 UTC

Michal what should it be labeled?

Comment 2 Michal Trunecka 2013-06-21 07:09:52 UTC

I think that
/boot/etc/yaboot.conf should be labeled  bootloader_etc_t
/etc/yaboot.conf can stay as etc_t or should be bootloader_etc_t as well

There is no explanation in the linked bug but it was resolved so that the bootloaders' conf files are labeled as bootloader_etc_t instead of boot_t. I assume it was for some reason.

(Oh, now I see the typo in the Bug Description, bootloader_t should have been bootloader_etc_t)

Comment 3 Daniel Walsh 2013-06-28 18:54:59 UTC

I made this change in Rawhide policy.

Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2013-11-21 10:31:04 UTC

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.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-1598.html