Description of problem: Perhaps reporting an error? SELinux is preventing dnssec-trigger- from 'execute' accesses on the file /usr/sbin/ldconfig. ***** Plugin catchall (100. confidence) suggests ************************** If vous pensez que dnssec-trigger- devrait être autorisé à accéder execute sur ldconfig file par défaut. Then vous devriez rapporter ceci en tant qu'anomalie. Vous pouvez générer un module de stratégie local pour autoriser cet accès. Do autoriser cet accès pour le moment en exécutant : # grep dnssec-trigger- /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol # semodule -i mypol.pp Additional Information: Source Context system_u:system_r:dnssec_trigger_t:s0 Target Context system_u:object_r:ldconfig_exec_t:s0 Target Objects /usr/sbin/ldconfig [ file ] Source dnssec-trigger- Source Path dnssec-trigger- Port <Unknown> Host (removed) Source RPM Packages Target RPM Packages glibc-2.21-5.fc22.x86_64 Policy RPM selinux-policy-3.13.1-128.2.fc22.noarch Selinux Enabled True Policy Type targeted Enforcing Mode Enforcing Host Name (removed) Platform Linux (removed) 4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 23 13:58:53 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 Alert Count 14 First Seen 2015-07-07 05:54:10 CEST Last Seen 2015-07-07 23:30:55 CEST Local ID 46274d1d-97eb-45d6-a6bd-db42038af4ed Raw Audit Messages type=AVC msg=audit(1436304655.582:644): avc: denied { execute } for pid=3338 comm="dnssec-trigger-" name="ldconfig" dev="dm-2" ino=1844776 scontext=system_u:system_r:dnssec_trigger_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:ldconfig_exec_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0 Hash: dnssec-trigger-,dnssec_trigger_t,ldconfig_exec_t,file,execute Version-Release number of selected component: selinux-policy-3.13.1-128.2.fc22.noarch Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.6.0 hashmarkername: setroubleshoot kernel: 4.0.6-300.fc22.x86_64 type: libreport
Why is dnssec-trigger running ldconfig?
Probably happens while reporting another issue (using FortiCLient SSL VPN client which insists on writing/deeting /etc/resolv.conf on its own).
What version of dnssec-trigger are you running? dnssec-trigger-script sets immutable attribute on /etc/resolv.conf so that any other tool can write to it. FortiClient shoud not touch resolv.conf but rahter forward its information to NetworkManager. However I'm not sure right now why dnssec-trigger would run the ldconfig. I think it should not.
FortiClient has been messing with /etc/resolv.conf for years - that was the right thing to do only a few years ago. It is now a major problem because of different issues: * /etc/resolv.conf is a symlink to /var/run/resolvconf/resolv.conf on Ubuntu. There are concurrency issues with NetworkManager and FortiClient overwrites and restores the symlink as if it were a file. * SELinux complains when FortiClient modifies /etc/resolv.conf on Fedora. * On Fedora with dnssec-trigger, dnssec-trigger locks /etc/resolv.conf thus preventing FortiClient from modifying the file. I believe I was able to work around the dnssec-trigger lock at first (possibly using the hotspot functionality) but then something changed in the combination SELinux/dnssec-trigger which broke all my messy workarounds. I ended up removing dnssec-trigger because I wasn't able to find a tractable solution to make it work with FortiCLient. I was using the latest dnssec-trigger package available for Fedora 22 until yesterday: dnssec-trigger-0.12-20.fc22.x86_64 Note that I may be using a slightly obsolete version of FortiCLient (4.4.2307) but this is all I got because the software is not publicly available and my IT team do not have resources to provide us the latest version using their privileged access. Anyway, I'm not complaining about FortiClient not working with dnssec-trigger - I know Fortinet are responsible for the situation. Yet the subsequent errors and their handling should not raise SELinux errors.
By the way, I have found a more recent version of FortiClient (4.4.2313) floating on the web. I might test it.
Right. The problem is that there is not any explicit call to ldconfig in dnssec-trigger-script and the whole script is written in Python. I don't see any reason why the script should be calling ldconfig nor how it happened. Are you able to somehow reliably reproduce the issue?
I have seen ldconfig-related dnssec-trigger issues more than once, including a SELinux incorrect security context for an atypical file path (/home/local/lib64/libdvdcss.so.2) which I have not reported because the error is clearly unrelated to dnssec-trigger and the path is indeed so atypical! I suspect that the machinery that reports the error (abrt?) runs ldconfig and then wrongly reports the ldconfig error to originate in dnssec-trigger itself.
What exactly happens in case of SELinux errors? Does by any chance dnssec-trigger (or whatever program is causing a SELinux error) spawn an error-reporting tool that might run ldoncfig or write into /var/tmp (see #1240840)?
Description of problem: Occurred on "sudo dnf update" of a newly installed workstation with dnssec-trigger running. Version-Release number of selected component: selinux-policy-3.13.1-128.16.fc22.noarch Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.6.2 hashmarkername: setroubleshoot kernel: 4.2.3-200.fc22.x86_64 type: libreport
*** Bug 1322147 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I got this AVC today, probably during a big update of the system by PackageKit (after a two-weeks vacation).
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.