Description of problem: Error in install.log while installing default package set: Installing kernel-2.6.18-256.el5.ppc64 matchpathcon failed: No such file or directory Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): RHEL5.7-Server-20110409.3 kernel-2.6.18-256.el5.ppc64 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start RHEL5.7 installation on PPC 2. Proceed to stage2, finish the installation, leave all options default 3. Reboot the system, check /root/install.log Actual results: Installing kernel-2.6.18-256.el5.ppc64 matchpathcon failed: No such file or directory Expected results: No errors while installing packages
Also reproduced on s390x: ... Installing rhn-setup-0.4.20-53.el5.noarch Installing kernel-2.6.18-256.el5.s390x matchpathcon failed: No such file or directory Installing 2:xinetd-2.3.14-10.el5.s390x ...
Hello, Is anybody working on this? There has been no progress for a month...
jan, do you see the same warning message coming from installing/upgrading only the kernel package?
So far I have only seen the message when installing the kernel package. Retested on build RHEL5.7-Server-20110525.0 with kernel-2.6.18-264.el5 and the issue didn't happen on s390x (installed both default and everything package set), but still reproducible on ppc with default package set
It seems to be a package-dependency problem and selinux-policy-targeted should be installed before the kernel package: from install.log: ... Installing selinux-policy-2.4.6-306.el5.noarch Installing kernel-2.6.18-264.el5.ppc64 matchpathcon failed: No such file or directory Installing java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-1.4.2.0-40jpp.115.ppc ... Installing selinux-policy-targeted-2.4.6-306.el5.noarch ... Trying to reproduce on installed system: [root@ibm-js22-vios-02-lp1 ~]# rpm -i kernel-2.6.18-265.el5.ppc64.rpm [root@ibm-js22-vios-02-lp1 ~]# rpm -e kernel-2.6.18-265.el5 [root@ibm-js22-vios-02-lp1 ~]# rpm -e selinux-policy-targeted [root@ibm-js22-vios-02-lp1 ~]# rpm -i kernel-2.6.18-265.el5.ppc64.rpm matchpathcon failed: No such file or directory [root@ibm-js22-vios-02-lp1 ~]#
lvm (used in mkinitrd) throws this warning for every command, when selinux-policy-targeted is not installed. Maybe it should detect if selinux is in use? # rpm -e selinux-policy-targeted # lvm help matchpathcon failed: není souborem ani adresářem Available lvm commands: Use 'lvm help <command>' for more information
# rpm -e selinux-policy-targeted Is this supported for RHEL?
I think it should not be allowed to remove policy files for active policy in the first place.
Seems like more of an lvm bug the an selinux one.
Please see comment #10 and #11. How is handled situation when policy files are removed / not installed yet? Should not selinux policy prevent it somehow?
In other words, lvm2 just happens to be the example used to demonstrate the problem, but other rpms have the same problem. The current workaround in lvm2 is just to hide the error message! The actual problem here - we think - is that there are extra dependencies that rpm does not know: the rpm for the currently-active selinux policy can be removed while the policy is in use, and then anything that calls matchpatchcon after that fails. And the inverse - rpm is installing the lvm package before the selinux policy package. So even though matchpathcon is available, it doesn't work because it depends on a policy package that is not present => a missing dependency?
(In reply to comment #12) > (Upstream lvm has this error moved to debug level so it is not visible in > default log level Which should be seen just as a temporary workaround until the underlying problem can be addressed: might it not then leave you with a mis-labelled file or is there guaranteed to be a system-wide relabelling afterwards to fix it?
Fixed in device-mapper-1.02.63-4.el5.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0981.html