Re: restorecon vs. setfiles

[Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>]

Aleksey Nogin wrote:

> On 18.05.2004 19:22, Gary Peck wrote:
>
> > For some reason restorecon and setfiles have different notions of what
> > context certain files should be. For example:
>
> [...]
>
> > So, restorecon thinks that *.so files should be shlib_t, whereas
> > setfiles thinks they should be lib_t. Which one is right and why do they
> > disagree? I thought that they both get their context info from the same
> > place.
>
>
> It seems the two disagree on symlinks. May be restorecon forgets to 
> check whether its argument is a symlink?
Looks like a bug in matchpathcon (Which is used buy restorecon).  It is 
returning the wrong security context.  I will send this to stephen.  
Basically looks like it is ignoring file type.

Dan