Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

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:
Because of Bug 813803 the /etc/yaboot.conf was labeled as bootloader_t, but on ppc64 (the only arch this file matters) it's a symlink pointing to /boot/etc/yaboot.conf with type boot_t.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
selinux-policy-3.7.19-195.el6.noarch

Michal what should it be labeled?

I think that
/boot/etc/yaboot.conf should be labeled  bootloader_etc_t
/etc/yaboot.conf can stay as etc_t or should be bootloader_etc_t as well

There is no explanation in the linked bug but it was resolved so that the bootloaders' conf files are labeled as bootloader_etc_t instead of boot_t. I assume it was for some reason.

(Oh, now I see the typo in the Bug Description, bootloader_t should have been bootloader_etc_t)

I made this change in Rawhide policy.

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-2013-1598.html