| 1 |
Had the same problem. Emerge did not clobber the *.te files in |
| 2 |
/etc/security/selinux/src/policy. It went away after running 'etc-update' |
| 3 |
and merging the changes. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
sam |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
-----Original Message----- |
| 8 |
From: Roel Vromen [mailto:roel@××××××.net] |
| 9 |
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 1:40 AM |
| 10 |
To: gentoo-hardened@××××××××××××.org |
| 11 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] problem with new policies? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On Friday 01 April 2005 01:33, Chris PeBenito wrote: |
| 14 |
> On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:27 +0200, Roel Vromen wrote: |
| 15 |
> > but that doesn't seem to do anything in my case: |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > make after make clean still gives a load of messages such as: |
| 18 |
> > ------- |
| 19 |
> > #line 18 |
| 20 |
> > domains/admin.te:18:ERROR 'permission connected_socket_perms is not |
| 21 |
> > defined forclass tcp_socket' at token ';' on line 4297: |
| 22 |
> > allow sysadm_mail_t self:tcp_socket connected_socket_perms; |
| 23 |
> > ------ |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I'm assuming you're using selinux-base-policy-20050322. I doublechecked |
| 26 |
> the tarball, and it is in macros/core_macros.te. So if its not |
| 27 |
> existing, then either your policy is broken, or you didn't etc-update. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You were so right! The selinux-base-policy was in a series of updates. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Probably better if I spot a selinux-base-policy update to do a separate |
| 32 |
merge |
| 33 |
(complete with the etc-update) for that one, and only THEN do the emerge -uD |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
world. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. Very much appreciated. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Roel |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives