Bug 808310 - SELinux is preventing master from 'name_bind' accesses on the tcp_socket .
Summary: SELinux is preventing master from 'name_bind' accesses on the tcp_socket .
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: selinux-policy
Version: 16
Hardware: i686
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Miroslav Grepl
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:28ddfa578a5389c66d67b2c85bf...
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-03-30 06:06 UTC by Jose Antonio Benitez
Modified: 2013-02-13 18:54 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-02-13 18:54:04 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jose Antonio Benitez 2012-03-30 06:06:57 UTC
libreport version: 2.0.8
executable:     /usr/bin/python
hashmarkername: setroubleshoot
kernel:         3.3.0-4.fc16.i686
reason:         SELinux is preventing master from 'name_bind' accesses on the tcp_socket .
time:           jue 29 mar 2012 23:57:52 CST

description:
:SELinux is preventing master from 'name_bind' accesses on the tcp_socket .
:
:*****  Plugin bind_ports (92.2 confidence) suggests  *************************
:
:If you want to allow master to bind to network port 10026
:Then you need to modify the port type.
:Do
:# semanage port -a -t PORT_TYPE -p tcp 10026
:    where PORT_TYPE is one of the following: smtp_port_t, amavisd_send_port_t.
:
:*****  Plugin catchall_boolean (7.83 confidence) suggests  *******************
:
:If you want to allow system to run with NIS
:Then you must tell SELinux about this by enabling the 'allow_ypbind'boolean.
:Do
:setsebool -P allow_ypbind 1
:
:*****  Plugin catchall (1.41 confidence) suggests  ***************************
:
:If you believe that master should be allowed name_bind access on the  tcp_socket by default.
:Then you should report this as a bug.
:You can generate a local policy module to allow this access.
:Do
:allow this access for now by executing:
:# grep master /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol
:# semodule -i mypol.pp
:
:Additional Information:
:Source Context                system_u:system_r:postfix_master_t:s0
:Target Context                system_u:object_r:unreserved_port_t:s0
:Target Objects                 [ tcp_socket ]
:Source                        master
:Source Path                   master
:Port                          10026
:Host                          (removed)
:Source RPM Packages           
:Target RPM Packages           
:Policy RPM                    selinux-policy-3.10.0-80.fc16.noarch
:Selinux Enabled               True
:Policy Type                   targeted
:Enforcing Mode                Enforcing
:Host Name                     (removed)
:Platform                      Linux (removed) 3.3.0-4.fc16.i686
:                              #1 SMP Tue Mar 20 18:45:14 UTC 2012 i686 i686
:Alert Count                   1
:First Seen                    jue 29 mar 2012 23:54:34 CST
:Last Seen                     jue 29 mar 2012 23:54:34 CST
:Local ID                      14bc66ce-6195-429a-ba1c-0eb4cbbb9548
:
:Raw Audit Messages
:type=AVC msg=audit(1333086874.961:77): avc:  denied  { name_bind } for  pid=2668 comm="master" src=10026 scontext=system_u:system_r:postfix_master_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:unreserved_port_t:s0 tclass=tcp_socket
:
:
:Hash: master,postfix_master_t,unreserved_port_t,tcp_socket,name_bind
:
:audit2allow
:
:#============= postfix_master_t ==============
:#!!!! This avc can be allowed using the boolean 'allow_ypbind'
:
:allow postfix_master_t unreserved_port_t:tcp_socket name_bind;
:
:audit2allow -R
:
:#============= postfix_master_t ==============
:#!!!! This avc can be allowed using the boolean 'allow_ypbind'
:
:allow postfix_master_t unreserved_port_t:tcp_socket name_bind;
:

Comment 1 Miroslav Grepl 2012-03-30 06:54:34 UTC
Did you setup this port?

Comment 2 Daniel Walsh 2012-03-30 18:09:13 UTC
Google shows this port as being popular for relaying emails using postfix?

Looks like they allow access on 10025 and 10026, and we currently allow access on 10025

Comment 3 Fedora End Of Life 2013-01-16 15:44:43 UTC
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

Comment 4 Fedora End Of Life 2013-02-13 18:54:08 UTC
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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.