"Could not change policy booleans"

[Daniel J Walsh]

Paul Howarth wrote:
> Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:35 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 10:00 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>> Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>> Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>> Nils Caspar wrote:
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>> That should have been solved by an update to dbus in fc6 a 
>>>>>>>>>> month ago.
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> What Fedora
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>>> release are you running? Are you completely updated?
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> I'm running a full updated fedora 7.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>>> That should have worked. That should be the correct syntax. 
>>>>>>>>>> Was there
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> an avc
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>>> associated with trying to set this?
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> There was no other warning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have the same problem in an other fedora 7 VM. Maybe it's a 
>>>>>>>>> fedora 7
>>>>>>>>> bug... :(
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> I've just hit the same problem on a fresh Fedora 7 install, 
>>>>>>>> with all released updates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list mailing list
>>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Does this fix the problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> restorecon -R -v /etc/selinux/targeted
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>> No; there are no AVC denials in the audit log (at least not 
>>>>>> relating to this...) so I don't think it's an SELinux permissions 
>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updating to the latest selinux package updates from 
>>>>>> updates-testing hasn't helped either.
>>>>>>         
>>>>> Bug in setsebool (it is actually succeeding, but falling through 
>>>>> to the
>>>>> error path and thus incorrectly saying that it failed, as a result 
>>>>> of a
>>>>> "build fix").  Fixed in policycoreutils 2.0.21.
>>>>>       
>>>> Ah, saves me having to put something in an initscript :-)
>>>>
>>>> FC7 has policycoreutils-2.0.16-5.fc7 (from updates-testing), which 
>>>> seems a long way behind 2.0.21. Is a fix likely any time soon?
>>>>     
>>>
>>> I sent Dan the patch separately as well, in case he wants to just apply
>>> it without updating otherwise.
>>>   
>> Fixed in policycoreutils 
>> <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/policycoreutils>-2.0.16-6.fc7
>
> Thanks.
>
> On an unrelated issue, where does the version number in the 
> selinux-policy package come from? Upstream seems to do date-based 
> releases rather than version number-based. I ask because I need to 
> update my policy module for mod_fcgid and I'll need different versions 
> for F7 (using patterns) and older releases (using create_file_perms 
> etc.).
>
> Paul.
It comes from me.

selinux-policy-2.3.4

Everytime I release My own modifications I increment the last digit, 
everytime I merge with upstream I update the middle number, and reset 
the last digit to 1.  Everytime there is a major change to policy 
example-reference I increment the first. digit.  If you do a

rpm -qi selinux-policy
It will show you the revision this policy is based off of.

BTW,  I am working on merging strict and targeted policy in Rawhide 
which will increment the major number.  selinux-policy-3.0.1 will be 
released soon.