Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:02:24 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.27-rc1: strange fstab issue (Re: 2.6.27-rc1 + selinux new options = no httpd) |
| |
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 09:47:59AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 09:39 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Thursday 31 July 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Update by Gene below. > > >On Thursday, 31 of July 2008, James Morris wrote: > > >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Gene Heskett wrote: > > >> > >Which new options? > > >> > > > >> > Make xconfig-->security options: > > >> > > > >> > XFRM Networking security hooks > > >> > > > >> > and several others just below it. Unforch, I can't copy/paste the > > >> > screen. > > >> > > >> I can't really imagine what that is (although if you enable the secmark > > >> controls under the main SELinux menu, which are disabled by default, > > >> there could be problems). > > > > > >On a possibly related note, I've been observing a strange issue on one of > > >my test boxes with OpenSUSE 10.3 recently. Namely, the fsck complains > > >that there's no passno value in the fstab, although it obviously is present. > > > > > >Strangely enough, if the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX > > > unset, the fsck doesn't complain about the missing passno field any more. > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Rafael > > > > I just did a 2.6.27-rc1 rebuild on a pure, all defaults 'make oldconfig' from > > my 2.6.26 final .config moved to that src tree. > > > > httpd is still being denied access to its log files and dies during the bootup. > > > > This is a showstopper for me. > > Stephen Smalley just sent me a private note. Apparently he is having > e-mail trouble but he did point out the most likely problem. Can you > add the patch from > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121726661110266&w=2 > > And give it a whirl? Sorry, but we think the problem is that the VFS > stopped passing all of the relevant information down to the security > system. https is only allowed to append to its log files, not actually > 'write.' Since the VFS is longer differentiating those two operations > you are getting then denial for write. > > I'll try to get this pushed into linus's tree quickly.
It's in linux-next, BTW. I'll push the next set to Linus in an hour or so.
| |