| 1 |
Hi guys, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Assuming you don't kill me for not using hexadecimal notations, rev 10 is |
| 4 |
now out right after rev 9. Revision 10 of selinux-base-policy comes with |
| 5 |
fixes for the following: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
- <bug #389577> Fix fail2ban issues |
| 8 |
- <bug #396331> Allow mkhomedir_helper to work |
| 9 |
- <bug #396241> Add a bacula policy |
| 10 |
- <no bug> Fix postfix startup issue (can't create files when started immediately in enforcing mode) |
| 11 |
- <no bug> Dont audit unix_stream_socket stuff for sending mails |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The push comes with sec-policy/selinux-bacula and sec-policy/selinux-oddjob. |
| 14 |
Once these are in the Portage tree, the necessary dependencies will be added |
| 15 |
as well (can't do that as long as they're not in of course). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
With this push, I also brought out policycoreutils-2.1.0-r2. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I would **really** appreciated people telling me when they have upgraded |
| 20 |
their policycoreutils package and seen anything (or nothing). The package |
| 21 |
updates the newrole issue we had earlier (bug #375475) but also adds the |
| 22 |
IUSE="pam audit" parameters to support bug #393401. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As long as you USE="pam" all should be okay. Dropping this will cause issues |
| 25 |
with the current policy as applications now suddenly need access to shadow_t |
| 26 |
and such (whereas this was previously nicely shielded off through the PAM |
| 27 |
helpers). I don't know how to handle this case yet. I can definitely start |
| 28 |
updating the policies so they work without PAM, but I'd first like to know |
| 29 |
if there are people using SELinux without PAM... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Wkr, |
| 32 |
Sven Vermeulen |
Archives