[Linux-cluster] RHEL4.5, GFS and selinux, are they playing nice?

Ryan O'Hara rohara at redhat.com
Wed Sep 12 20:26:00 UTC 2007

Roger Peña wrote:

>> is this related to the fact that selinux policy
>> stated
>> this:
>> genfscon gfs /  system_u:object_r:nfs_t

Yes. This is what would be used for a filesystem that does not support 
selinux xattrs. In RHEL4.5, SELinux xattr support was added to GFS. 

> should I follow what is stated for reiserfs in this
> url:
> http://james-morris.livejournal.com/3580.html

Yes. GFS needs to be defined as a filesystem that supports selinux xattrs.

> if I should do it, because is the right thing to do,
> why:
> 1- redhat did not do it for the release of 4.5 ?

The reason that the selinux policy was not updated for RHEL4.5 (in 
regards to selinux xattr support for GFS) is described in BZ 215559, 
comment #3:

"Changing this on the installed environment could have unexpected 
results.  For example, currently all files on gfs are unlabled and 
treated as nfs_t.  If I suddenly make this change, these file would then 
be treated file_t and any domain that was using them would become unable 
to .  This would require a relabel to fix.  And could cause hundreds of 
AVC messages.  I do not feel this is worth it since almost everyone will 
not use the labels on GFS to treat one file differently than another. In 
the future, where you might have /usr mounted on a gfs or gfs2 
partition, this would become more valuable."

> 2- others aren't getting this king of problems?

I'm not sure how many people are using GFS with SELinux enabled. :)


More information about the Linux-cluster mailing list