From: | Mike Palmiotto <mike(dot)palmiotto(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: sepgsql seems rather thoroughly broken on Fedora 30 |
Date: | 2019-07-19 19:55:22 |
Message-ID: | CAMN686H0bby=GXfmF2ykB_CntyvM5YVO6BjEg5-e1+Ee1uJXeA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:19 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I got around to trying this, and lookee here:
>
> $ sudo sesearch -A -s sepgsql_regtest_user_t -t passwd_file_t
> allow domain file_type:blk_file map; [ domain_can_mmap_files ]:True
> allow domain file_type:chr_file map; [ domain_can_mmap_files ]:True
> allow domain file_type:file map; [ domain_can_mmap_files ]:True
> allow domain file_type:lnk_file map; [ domain_can_mmap_files ]:True
>
> Nothing about passwd_file_t. So *something* is different about the
> way the policy is being expanded.
Okay, I was finally able to replicate the issue (and fix it). It looks
like perhaps the userdom_base_user_template changed and no longer
allows reading of passwd_file_t? At any rate, I added some policy to
ensure that we have the proper permissions.
I also beefed up the test script a bit so it now:
- installs the SELinux policy module
- spins up a temporary cluster to muddy postgresql.conf and run the
setup sql in an isolated environment
We probably need to polish this a bit more, but what do you think
about something similar to the attached patches? They should hopefully
reduce some of the complexity of running these regression tests.
--
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Make-sepgsql-regtest-policy-module-less-error-prone.patch | text/x-patch | 2.2 KB |
0002-Add-sandboxed-cluster-for-sepgsql-regression-tests.patch | text/x-patch | 3.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-19 19:57:45 | Re: should there be a hard-limit on the number of transactions pending undo? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-19 19:52:27 | Re: should there be a hard-limit on the number of transactions pending undo? |