Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): selinux-policy-3.7.19-109.el6.noarch selinux-policy-targeted-3.7.19-109.el6.noarch selinux-policy-minimum-3.7.19-109.el6.noarch selinux-policy-mls-3.7.19-109.el6.noarch How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. get a fresh RHEL-6.2 machine 2. log in as root via ssh 3. run following automated test: /CoreOS/selinux-policy/Regression/bz584451-piranha-and-ipvsadm Actual results: ---- time->Wed Sep 7 11:03:16 2011 type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1315407796.572:325736): arch=c000003e syscall=59 success=no exit=-13 a0=40d219 a1=7fff81e4d3d0 a2=7fff81e4df58 a3=7f75952999d0 items=0 ppid=23164 pid=15173 auid=0 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=(none) ses=55 comm="pulse" exe="/usr/sbin/pulse" subj=unconfined_u:system_r:piranha_pulse_t:s0 key=(null) type=AVC msg=audit(1315407796.572:325736): avc: denied { execute } for pid=15173 comm="pulse" name="fos" dev=dm-0 ino=1449036 scontext=unconfined_u:system_r:piranha_pulse_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:piranha_fos_exec_t:s0 tclass=file ---- Expected results: * no AVCs
I am fixing a bug in the policy.
Fixed in selinux-policy-3.7.19-110.el6
Is this a default port?
# rpm -qf /etc/sysconfig/ha/web/secure/help.php piranha-0.8.5-7.el6.x86_64 # rpm -V piranha # grep -A 3 -i "heartbeat runs on port" /etc/sysconfig/ha/web/secure/help.php Heartbeat runs on port: It is possible to alter the port that heartbeat runs on. The default if not set is 1050. Normally you should not have to touch this. </PRE> #
cma 1050/udp # CORBA Management Agent
We currently have corenet_udp_bind_apertus_ldp_port(piranha_pulse_t) corenet_udp_bind_cma_port(piranha_pulse_t) Should we label this port as either of these?
(In reply to comment #7) > We currently have > > corenet_udp_bind_apertus_ldp_port(piranha_pulse_t) > corenet_udp_bind_cma_port(piranha_pulse_t) This is a fix which I added to Fedora. Will add to RHEL6. > > > Should we label this port as either of these?
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1511.html