similar to: [PATCH] document behavior of --selinux-relabel

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 03:21:45PM -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > the description of the --selinux-relabel option suggests that it > perform an immediate relabel, when in fact it may (and probably will) > instead simply touch /.autorelabel on the image, which schedules a > relabel operation for the next time the image boots. This can be > surprising because it results both in

Rewrite the relabel API to read the policy configured in the guest, invoking setfiles (added as part of the appliance, as part of policycoreutils) to relabel the specified root. In case of failure at any point of the process, a touch of .autorelabel in the root is tried as last-attempt measure to do the relabel. Considering that running SELinux tools in the appliance might be affected by the

This implements the --selinux-relabel option for virt-customize, virt-builder and virt-sysprep. There is no need to autorelabel functionality now. Thanks: Stephen Smalley --- builder/Makefile.am | 1 + builder/virt-builder.pod | 20 +++++++++---------- customize/Makefile.am | 2 ++ customize/SELinux_relabel.ml | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[ I realized that we were discussing adding this feature, in various private email, IRC, and this long bugzilla thread: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060423 That's not how we should do things. Let's discuss it on the mailing list. ] One thing that virt-customize/virt-sysprep/virt-builder have to do is relabel SELinux guests. What we do at the moment

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 05:57:50PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > Do not attempt to relabel a guest in case its SELinux enforcing mode is > not "enforcing", as it is either pointless, or it may fail because of an > invalid policy configured. > --- > mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >

Continuation/rework of: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-May/msg00020.html This is my approach, as I explained here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828952#c4 https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-May/msg00035.html IOW: do not attempt to relabel if the guest is not enforcing, as it is either useless or may fail; few words more are in the comments of patch #3.

This shouldn't change the effect of this code. --- mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml | 121 ++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) diff --git a/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml b/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml index 44995df..5df1f08 100644 --- a/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml +++ b/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml @@ -28,65 +28,74 @@ module G = Guestfs

A common problem that people have with virt-builder and virt-sysprep is which guests that use SELinux, like Fedora and RHEL. In both cases we touch /.autorelabel in the guest, which means the guest has to reboot once during its first boot. Recap: SELinux file labels -------------------------- SELinux requires that files have labels. Access to a file is controlled by the label on that file.

Hello everyone, If create a folder called "whatever" under /var, the context is: root:object_r:var_t /var/whatever/ That's expected as it is under /var. If I then change its type: chcont -t httpd_sys_content_t /var/whatever The context looks like: root:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t /var/whatever/ My question is...Shouldn't a relabeling of the filesystem change the type

Following the steps under "Contribute to the Wiki" at http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute#head-42b3d8e26400a106851a61aebe5c2cca54dd79e5 My Wiki name is BennettHaselton. I wanted to edit this paragraph: "Note: When switching from Disabled to either Permissive or Enforcing mode, it is highly recommended that the system be rebooted and the filesystem relabeled." to add:

Do SELinux relabelling properly.

Fixes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212807

If the guest uses SELinux, then make sure to run a relabel (or at least schedule one) after the image build: this way the template is relabelled, or at least it will do that at the next boot, without the need for the user to ask for a relabel. This just covers the case of building a new image with no additional operations on it though. --- builder/website/centos.sh | 2 ++

--- customize/customize_run.ml | 22 +++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/customize/customize_run.ml b/customize/customize_run.ml index 0f1d72a..cd4616c 100644 --- a/customize/customize_run.ml +++ b/customize/customize_run.ml @@ -338,15 +338,19 @@ exec >>%s 2>&1 if ops.flags.selinux_relabel then ( msg (f_"SELinux

Add simple operations for RHEL guests using subscription-manager, so it is possible to e.g. install software on them. --- customize/Makefile.am | 8 +++- customize/customize_run.ml | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ generator/customize.ml | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sysprep/Makefile.am | 8 +++- 4 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff

On Tuesday 27 May 2014 09:08:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:21:59AM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > Rewrite the relabel API to read the policy configured in the guest, > > invoking setfiles (added as part of the appliance, as part of > > policycoreutils) to relabel the specified root. In case of failure > > at > > any point of the process,

Do not attempt to relabel a guest in case its SELinux enforcing mode is not "enforcing", as it is either pointless, or it may fail because of an invalid policy configured. --- mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml b/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml index 647aeda..db00e59

I could not get vsftpd to start; kept getting the "vsftpd Dead Subsys Locked" error. On doing a Google search, I came across a fix (lost the site unfortunately) and as I recall, it has something to do with copying a file and having the incorrect SElinux settings (I have SElinux disabled). The fix was to do a fixfiles, relabel (commands that I have never used) or a touch of

On Thursday, 24 September 2020 12:15:29 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 05:57:50PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > Do not attempt to relabel a guest in case its SELinux enforcing mode is > > not "enforcing", as it is either pointless, or it may fail because of an > > invalid policy configured. > > --- > >

On Tuesday, 5 May 2020 17:44:15 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828952#c2 I think we need to do a different approach than this patch. The biggest thing is that currently we check only SELINUXTYPE for the actual policy, however we do not check SELINUX in case SELinux is in enforcing mode at all. IMHO we rather need to read