Re: Portage-related AVCs

On 23/11/16 17:30, Jason Zaman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 05:20:59PM +0000, Robert Sharp wrote:
>> On 23/11/16 16:59, Robert Sharp wrote:
>>> On 23/11/16 15:58, Jason Zaman wrote:
>>>> Either is fine, but im probably just gonna stabilize the 2.6 userspace
>>>> in a couple weeks so that one is likely easier. and setools4 is waaay
>>>> better than 3. The important point is that you dont want to have both
>>>> policy.29 and policy.30 around. Then you get weirdness like if you
>>>> downgrade a kernel or something random it'll load in the old policy
>>>> which probably doesnt work properly, so whichever you pick, make sure
>>>> you nuke the other one. and semodule -B will rebuild the whole policy
>>>> again and load it.
>>> OK - I will go with policy.30 and add the keywords etc. I did a couple
>>> of local policy changes that may not be needed so will they disappear
>>> in all of this or do I need to remove them somehow first?
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your help,
>>> Robert
>>>
>> Sorry - noticed a couple of things while preping the emerge:
>>
>> 1) selinux-base-policy is blocking policycoreutils so presumably I need
>> to add that to my accept_keywords?
>> 2) this package has the "unconfined" use flag set but I don't use
>> unconfined. Does that matter?
> Oh, yeah the 2.6 userland needs at minimum 2.20151208-r6. Its been long
> enough, i'll stabilize the new policies right away so just wait a bit
> any sync again.
>
> unconfined useflag just builds it, if you are using strict you can turn
> off unconfined and set this in make.conf:
> POLICY_TYPES="strict"
> then it wont even build the targetted modules at all.
>
Thanks Jason - you have been busy. I have just updated to 20151208-r6 
and when I run semodule -B I get this message:

   "libsemanage.add_user: user system_u not in password file"

Googling suggests this was a problem in Fedora (see bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378204) and it was fixed a 
few days ago in their selinux-policy-3.13.1-191.20.fc24. I ran sesearch 
as before and it comes up with the same results as before so I assume 
the semodule command did not do what it was supposed to do. Is there a 
work around for this or should I go ~arch on the policy as well? If so, 
is there a way to avoid listing all the policy packages in my 
accept_keywords file?

Thanks again,
Robert