On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 17:08 -0400, Ade Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 16:43 -0400, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 08:48:32AM -0400, Ade Lee wrote:
> > > Incidentally, I ran this in permmissive selinux mode. The following
> > > rules are required to be added:
> > >
> > > #============= certmonger_t ==============
> > > corenet_tcp_connect_http_cache_port(certmonger_t)
> > > files_read_var_lib_symlinks(certmonger_t)
> > On my system, "semanage port -l" shows me:
> > http_cache_port_t tcp 8080, 8118, 10001-10010
> > Are these ports already labeled this way for Dogtag, or is it a
> > coincidental overlap with some other package? If it's an overlap,
> > it might be better to switch to using ports which aren't already labeled
> > for use in policy that applies to some other package.
> We have specifically chosen to use what would be the default ports for
> tomcat. These ports are already labeled as you have described above.
> We have adjusted our selinux policy to handle that. In fact, we are now
> extending a tomcat selinux domain provided by the system policies, and
> this tomcat domain allows access to those ports.
> > If not, please open a bug against the selinux-policy component to get
> > these accesses added to the set that's allowed by the default policy.
> I can open a bug.
Ade, how will the selinux policy be handled in an upgrade scenario ?
If I understand correctly you are dropping custom selinux policies from
dogtag 10 and relying on system policy going forward, so what will keep
the right labels for the old ports in an upgrade scenario ?
Or will the rpm upgrade also change ports ? Is this properly handled on
the ipa part yet ?
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
Freeipa-devel mailing list