Bug 222300 - CDROM test fails. SELinux security violation
Summary: CDROM test fails. SELinux security violation
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 218124
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Hardware Certification Program
Classification: Retired
Component: Test Suite (tests)
Version: 5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Greg Nichols
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-01-11 15:43 UTC by Gregory Feiner
Modified: 2008-07-16 21:58 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-01-11 20:54:44 UTC
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
CDROM test results. (742.76 KB, application/octet-stream)
2007-01-11 15:43 UTC, Gregory Feiner 		no flags Details
SELinux sercurity violation during CDROM test. (1.83 KB, text/plain)
2007-01-11 15:44 UTC, Gregory Feiner 		no flags Details
View All

Description Gregory Feiner 2007-01-11 15:43:45 UTC 
Description of problem:
CDROM test fails. The error is: cp: cannot create directory `./device-
copy':Permission denied.  At the same time, SELinux pops up with a security 
violation stating: SELinux is preventing /bin/cp (iso9660_t) "associate" to 
device-copy (fs_t).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):HTS 5.0-15


How reproducible: Every time.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install RHEL 5 to ProLiant DL320 G5.
2. Install HTS 5.0-15.  
3. Run CDROM test.  watch it fail.  The CDROM is model 224E_N
  
Actual results:


Expected results: should pass.


Additional info: results rpm and SELinux log are attached.
Comment 1 Gregory Feiner 2007-01-11 15:43:45 UTC 
Created attachment 145360 [details]
CDROM test results.
Comment 2 Gregory Feiner 2007-01-11 15:44:22 UTC 
Created attachment 145361 [details]
SELinux sercurity violation during CDROM test.
Comment 3 Gregory Feiner 2007-01-11 19:53:37 UTC 
Garry Wong has found that changing the SELinux Enforcement to Permissive gets 
past this problem.  However, according to documentation, Enforced is 
required.  Given this, is this workaround valid?
Comment 4 Greg Nichols 2007-01-11 20:54:44 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 218124 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.