Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Miroslav Grepl asked me to open a F16 bug on selinux-policy as a follow-up to his looking at my 720223. I am attaching a cut-and-paste from /var/log/audit/audit.log showing an execution of clamscan from inside rc.local which generates a whole buncha "avc: denied" while it scans my system. 720223 documents my discovery of such on F14, my thinking it was fixed in F16, and my discovery that it wasn't as the warnings were there but I wasn't getting an selinux alert browser notification (I have been directed to 782269 as the cause of that and will test again once it is pushed). Note I am wrapping the clamscan in rc.local with setenforce 0/1 to turn errors into warnings. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): uname: 3.1.9-1.fc16.i686 PAE selinux-policy: 3.10.0-71.fc16 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. create a rc.local and have it call /usr/bin/clamscan, wrapping it it setenforce 0/1 to turn errors into warnings 2. power cycle and/or reboot 3. wait until you know the clamscan has finished and look in /var/log/audit/audit.log Actual results: lots of "avc: denied" messages Expected results: no "avc: denied" messages Additional info: Please let me know if there is anything more I can provide and/or if I misunderstood Miroslav Grepl's request and gave wrong details/info. Thanks in advance, Paul
Created attachment 557077 [details] This is the cut-and-paste from /var/log/audit/audit.log I grabbed from the notice that it is doing setenforce 0 through when I do a setenforce 1 ... all the stuff inbetween is the clamscan in permissive mode
I just got finished installing systemd-37-11 per bug 754789 and wanted to retest this bug with that update. I also have setroubleshoot-3.1.2-1.fc16 per bug 782269. I did a full yum update @19:30 today so everything should be current (I only cite those two as those packages seem relevant) It is still happening. Sending most recent run cut-and-paste of audit.log from the point a reboot was issued until I had a complete execution of clamscan called by rc.local Looking forward to hearing what the view on this is. Thanks, Paul
Created attachment 558513 [details] Audit log from 30jan12 testing
This may no longer be an issue. On the advice of Dan Walsh, I executed the following line: +++ setsebool -P clamscan_read_user_content 1 +++ I also get the sense that there have been some other updates/changes from following the user lists. So far, I am not seeing any selinux barkings when either clamscan or freshclam is run from rc.local. I am going to continue keeping an eye on /var/log/messages to make sure I can catch enough different instances to be sure Paul
This message is a reminder that Fedora 16 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 16. 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 '16'. 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 16'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 16 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, you are encouraged to click on "Clone This Bug" and open it against that version of Fedora. 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. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 16 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2013-02-12. Fedora 16 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.