RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1700987 - 389-base-ds expected file permissions in package don't match final runtime permissions
Summary: 389-base-ds expected file permissions in package don't match final runtime pe...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: 389-ds-base
Version: 7.6
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Matus Honek
QA Contact: RHDS QE
Marc Muehlfeld
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1788833 1814603
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-04-17 17:44 UTC by Ryan Mullett
Modified: 2024-03-25 15:16 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 389-ds-base-1.3.10.2-1.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
.The `389-ds-base` package now sets the required permissions on directories owned by the Directory Server user If directories in the file system owned by the Directory Server user do not have the correct permissions, Directory Server utilities adjust them accordingly. However, if these permissions were different to the ones that were set during the RPM installation, verifying the RPM using the `rpm -V 389-ds-base` command failed. This update fixes the permissions in the RPM. As a consequence, verifying the `389-ds-base` package no longer complains about incorrect permissions.
Clone Of:
: 1814603 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-09-29 19:46:50 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Github 389ds 389-ds-base issues 3993 0 None closed Permissions of some shipped directories may change over time 2021-02-08 11:18:37 UTC
Red Hat Knowledge Base (Solution) 6031581 0 None None None 2021-05-13 15:33:25 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2020:3894 0 None None None 2020-09-29 19:47:59 UTC

Description Ryan Mullett 2019-04-17 17:44:47 UTC 
Description of problem:
File permissions from the rpm do not match the runtime permissions on several files. This results in mode failures on rpm -Va. Most noticed on systems in which DISA STIG is being performed and file permissions should not be less than the rpm provides or it is considered a finding during an audit. Important for government users and contractors who will be performing DISA STIG. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-23.el7_6.x86_64

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. # yum install 389-ds-base
2. # rpm -V 389-ds-base (or scan with openscap using DISA STIG, which will perform an rpm -Va)

Actual results:
The following files have permissions that are more permissive than the rpm provides:

/etc/dirsrv
/etc/dirsrv/config
/etc/dirsrv/schema
/var/lib/dirsrv
/var/lock/dirsrv

Expected results:
The file permissions provided via rpm should match the final runtime permissions (or they should be less restrictive on the rpm than the runtime permissions, which would not result in a finding).

Additional info:
The following output shows what it "should be" according to the rpm, as well as what it "actually is" after the package has been installed. This could be resolved by using the proper permissions in the spec file, so that rpm -Va will not flag on these files, or the actual source files could have permissions changed to match what they are after installation. 

From rpm: 389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-23.el7_6.x86_64
/etc/dirsrv
SHOULD BE:  644
ACTUALLY IS:  775
---------------------------
From rpm: 389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-23.el7_6.x86_64
/etc/dirsrv/config
SHOULD BE:  644
ACTUALLY IS:  755
---------------------------
From rpm: 389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-23.el7_6.x86_64
/etc/dirsrv/schema
SHOULD BE:  644
ACTUALLY IS:  755
---------------------------
From rpm: 389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-23.el7_6.x86_64
/var/lib/dirsrv
SHOULD BE:  755
ACTUALLY IS:  775
---------------------------
From rpm: 389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-23.el7_6.x86_64
/var/lock/dirsrv
SHOULD BE:  755
ACTUALLY IS:  770
---------------------------
Comment 9 bsmejkal 2020-04-09 19:01:27 UTC 
Build tested:
389-ds-base-1.3.10.2-1.el7.x86_64

Permission fix is present in package.
'rpm -V 389-ds-base' does not report any discrepancies and permissions of directories are as they should be.
Marking as VERIFIED.
Comment 11 Viktor Ashirov 2020-06-02 14:11:06 UTC 
Build tested: 389-ds-base-1.3.10.2-3.el7.x86_64

After instance is created, 'rpm -V' reports dicrepancies:
# rpm -V 389-ds-base 
......G..    /etc/dirsrv
.M...UG..  g /var/lock/dirsrv

Moving to ASSIGNED.
Comment 15 Viktor Ashirov 2020-07-02 10:13:40 UTC 
Conflict with 389-admin was resolved, new version of 389-admin has updated file permissions too.
389-admin-1.46-3.el7dsrv also depends on a newer version of 389-ds-base, so that the dependency resolution is solved automatically:
 
=============================================================================================================================================================================
 Package                                 Arch                          Version                                 Repository                                               Size
=============================================================================================================================================================================
Updating:
 389-admin                               x86_64                        1.1.46-3.el7dsrv                        RHDS-10.6-RHEL-7-DirectoryServer                        392 k
 389-ds-base                             x86_64                        1.3.10.2-6.el7                          rhel7-latest                                            1.7 M
Updating for dependencies:
 389-ds-base-libs                        x86_64                        1.3.10.2-6.el7                          rhel7-latest                                            713 k
 389-ds-base-snmp                        x86_64                        1.3.10.2-6.el7                          rhel7-latest-optional                                   179 k

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================================================================================================================
Upgrade  2 Packages (+2 Dependent packages)

Total download size: 3.0 M
Is this ok [y/d/N]: 


Marking as VERIFIED.
Comment 19 errata-xmlrpc 2020-09-29 19:46:50 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 (389-ds-base bug fix and enhancement update), 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-2020:3894
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.