Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
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 1895029

Summary: SELinux is preventing unbound-anchor from name_bind accesses on the udp_socket port 61000 on rhel-8.2
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Reporter: Chandan Chouhan <cchouhan>
Component: selinux-policyAssignee: Zdenek Pytela <zpytela>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Milos Malik <mmalik>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 8.2CC: lvrabec, mmalik, plautrba, ssekidde
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Triaged
Target Release: 8.0Flags: pm-rhel: mirror+
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-12-01 17:59:45 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 Chandan Chouhan 2020-11-05 15:32:15 UTC
SELinux is preventing unbound-anchor from name_bind access on the udp_socket port 61000.

*****  Plugin bind_ports (92.2 confidence) suggests   ************************
If you want to allow unbound-anchor to bind to network port 61000
Then you need to modify the port type.
# semanage port -a -t PORT_TYPE -p udp 61000


type=AVC msg=audit(1603753229.888:1269743): avc:  denied  { name_bind } for  pid=511465 comm="unbound-anchor" src=61000 scontext=system_u:system_r:named_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:port_t:s0 tclass=udp_socket permissive=0

Comment 2 Zdenek Pytela 2020-11-09 18:32:24 UTC
(In reply to Chandan Chouhan from comment #0)
> SELinux is preventing unbound-anchor from name_bind access on the udp_socket
> port 61000.
> 
> *****  Plugin bind_ports (92.2 confidence) suggests  
> ************************
> If you want to allow unbound-anchor to bind to network port 61000
> Then you need to modify the port type.
> # semanage port -a -t PORT_TYPE -p udp 61000
> 
> 
> type=AVC msg=audit(1603753229.888:1269743): avc:  denied  { name_bind } for 
> pid=511465 comm="unbound-anchor" src=61000
> scontext=system_u:system_r:named_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:port_t:s0
> tclass=udp_socket permissive=0
Hi,

In your report unbound binds to port 61000. In default configuration in RHEL 8 there is this line in unbound.conf though:

outgoing-port-permit: 32768-60999

Have you made any modifications to the system, or can there be a configuration part from some previous release/installation?

# rpm -q unbound
unbound-1.7.3-14.el8.x86_64

Comment 5 Zdenek Pytela 2020-12-01 17:59:45 UTC
Please continue the discussion in bz#1830625.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1830625 ***