[redhat-lspp] /tmp polyinstantiation and the man command

[Daniel J Walsh]

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:01 -0500, Linda Knippers wrote:
>   
>> Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 10:41 -0500, Linda Knippers wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Version of policycoreutils-newrole and selinux-policy-mls?
>>>>> Contents of /etc/pam.d/newrole?
>>>>>           
>>>> Sorry, I'd mentioned in the call that I was running the latest from
>>>> Dan's people page but omitted it from the mail.  I have these
>>>> rpms.
>>>>
>>>> policycoreutils-1.33.2-2.el5
>>>> policycoreutils-newrole-1.33.2-2.el5
>>>> selinux-policy-mls-2.4.5-3.el5
>>>> selinux-policy-2.4.5-3.el5
>>>>
>>>> /etc/pam.d/newrole has this:
>>>> #%PAM-1.0
>>>> auth       include      system-auth
>>>> account    include      system-auth
>>>> password   include      system-auth
>>>> session    include      system-auth
>>>> session    optional     pam_xauth.so
>>>>         
>>> I would have expected the latter to include:
>>> session    required     pam_namespace.so unmnt_remnt no_unmount_on_close
>>>       
>> I added that line but I don't see any difference in behavior.  I added
>> it at the end.  Does the location matter?  (Sorry for the dumb pam question).
>>     
>
> Possibly, e.g. if there is a sufficient or requisite module in the
> system-auth stack.  Easiest thing to do is to move it up to the first
> one and try again.  But now I am wondering whether that policycoreutils
> was built with LSPP_PRIV=y, which is required to enable the audit and
> namespace functionality.  The fedora devel .spec file still has
> LOG_AUDIT_PRIV=y, which was the old flag for building with audit support
> and no longer is used.
>
> ls -l /usr/bin/newrole
> 1.33.5-4
>   
It does not.  Fixed in 1.33.5-4