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.

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