Description of problem: Using selinux-policy-targeted-2.6.4-26.fc7 in permissive mode, I get a number of socket denials from Mailman. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): selinux-policy-targeted-2.6.4-26.fc7 mailman-2.1.9-5 httpd-2.2.6-1.fc7 How reproducible: Difficult to determine. It appears I think, when I make changes to a list using the web interface. Actual results: avc: denied { read, write } for comm="listinfo" dev=sockfs egid=41 euid=48 exe="/usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo" exit=0 fsgid=41 fsuid=48 gid=48 items=0 name="" path="socket:[465972]" pid=28912 scontext=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 sgid=41 subj=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 suid=48 tclass=unix_stream_socket tcontext=system_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 tty=(none) uid=48 avc: denied { read, write } for comm="admin" dev=sockfs egid=41 euid=48 exe="/usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/admin" exit=0 fsgid=41 fsuid=48 gid=48 items=0 name="" path="socket:[563308]" pid=32584 scontext=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 sgid=41 subj=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 suid=48 tclass=unix_stream_socket tcontext=system_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 tty=(none) uid=48 avc: denied { read, write } for comm="listinfo" dev=sockfs egid=41 euid=48 exe="/usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo" exit=0 fsgid=41 fsuid=48 gid=48 items=0 name="" path="socket:[563323]" pid=4394 scontext=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 sgid=41 subj=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 suid=48 tclass=unix_stream_socket tcontext=system_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 tty=(none) uid=48 avc: denied { read, write } for comm="private" dev=sockfs egid=41 euid=48 exe="/usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/private" exit=0 fsgid=41 fsuid=48 gid=48 items=0 name="" path="socket:[391607]" pid=4745 scontext=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 sgid=41 subj=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 suid=48 tclass=unix_stream_socket tcontext=system_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 tty=(none) uid=48 avc: denied { read, write } for comm="create" dev=sockfs egid=41 euid=48 exe="/usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/create" exit=0 fsgid=41 fsuid=48 gid=48 items=0 name="" path="socket:[565273]" pid=25608 scontext=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 sgid=41 subj=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 suid=48 tclass=unix_stream_socket tcontext=system_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 tty=(none) uid=48 Additional info: Userid 48 is apache on this system.
If you put the machine in enforcing mode, does mailman continue to work?
I will dontaudit this in selinux-policy-targeted-2.6.4-49.fc7 if it works.
Yes, it seems to work just fine in enforcing mode using selinux-policy-targeted-2.6.4-26.fc7. I'm not sure what it was trying to do in the first place, especially since it was called by the apache user (#48).
Could be a leaked file descriptor. Policy currently has a interface to dontaudit this and none to allow, which seems to mean no one needs it. So I will dontaudit this in the next release and I am reassign this to httpd to have them look for a leaked file descriptor, or tell if this is the correct behaviour.
OK, in permissive mode, this occurs whenever /mailman/listinfo is called using the webserver, i.e. http://example.com/mailman/listinfo avc: denied { read, write } for comm="listinfo" dev=sockfs egid=41 euid=48 exe="/usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo" exit=0 fsgid=41 fsuid=48 gid=48 items=0 name="" path="socket:[630337]" pid=10916 scontext=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 sgid=41 subj=system_u:system_r:mailman_cgi_t:s0 suid=48 tclass=unix_stream_socket tcontext=system_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 tty=(none) uid=48
Dan, there is really no point in just assigning these to me in the hope that I will magically diagnose a leaked fd in httpd based on no evidence. These issues needs debugging from the perspective of the CGI script in question.
Yes you are right. Sorry.
I can't reproduce the problem. I looks to be similar to the bug #338091 though...
This message is a reminder that Fedora 7 is nearing the end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 7. 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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '7'. 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 prior to Fedora 7's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 7 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 please change the 'version' of this bug. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. 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. If possible, it is recommended that you try the newest available Fedora distribution to see if your bug still exists. Please read the Release Notes for the newest Fedora distribution to make sure it will meet your needs: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 7 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on June 13, 2008. Fedora 7 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. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.