Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.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 1895467

Summary: fapolicyd breaks system upgrade, leaving system in dead state
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Reporter: Renaud Métrich <rmetrich>
Component: fapolicydAssignee: Radovan Sroka <rsroka>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security>
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: urgent    
Version: 8.3CC: amdas, bfinger, bhoefer, cchen, cww, dapospis, dasmokedog, emcnabb, jgalipea, jpazdziora, jss, jwboyer, klaas, ktordeur, lvrabec, mthacker, nkinder, pgregorycullen, qguo, rblakley, rmullett, rsroka, seldridg, thomas.juberg, xialiu, xiliang, yoyang, yuokada
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: ZStream
Target Release: 8.0Flags: pm-rhel: mirror+
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: No Doc Update
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1895513 1895514 1895515 1896875 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-11 19:37:57 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1895513, 1895514, 1895515, 1896875    
Attachments:
Description Flags
postinstall scriptlets failing due to fapolicyd being active none

Description Renaud Métrich 2020-11-06 18:05:29 UTC
Description of problem:

We start seeing a lot of customers breaking their systems upon executing "yum update" on a RHEL8.2 system upgrading to RHEL8.3.

The culprit is fapolicyd getting updated and denying execution of ldconfig / postinstall scripts.

This is CRITICAL issue: all customers having FIPS installed and STIG recommendations have fapolicyd running.

Additionally, we don't have a standard procedure to recover broken systems for now.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

fapolicyd-1.0-3.el8.x86_64

How reproducible:

ALWAYS

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Start fapolicyd
2. Update the system

Comment 1 Renaud Métrich 2020-11-06 18:25:57 UTC
Created attachment 1727215 [details]
postinstall scriptlets failing due to fapolicyd being active

Comment 2 Renaud Métrich 2020-11-06 18:37:35 UTC
Workaround:

1. Stop fapolicyd prior to upgrading

-or-

2. Stick to 8.2 release for now

Comment 18 dasmokedog 2020-11-09 20:15:13 UTC
fyi https://access.redhat.com/solutions/5542661 now lists steps to recover a dead system.

Comment 19 John 2020-11-10 02:20:46 UTC
nice one, guise.

Comment 21 John 2020-11-11 03:11:41 UTC
I mean, seriously... does Red Hat do any testing *at all*?