[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: A question about allow_unconfined_mmap_low in f11 amd selinux



Mike Cloaked <mike.cloaked <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh <at> redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > On 11/04/2009 10:23 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> 
> > > By "moving forward" do you mean that one can, in f11, reset the
> > > original boolean and set boolean mmap_low_allowed instead, in a
> > > forthcoming policy update?
> > > 
> > > Or is this a planned change coming for f12 but not yet policy in
> > > earlier versions?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > We have setroubleshoot plugins that explain exactly to the users what
> they need to do to turn make their wine
> > apps run.
> > 
> 
> Does the dereference fix in kernel-2.6.30.9-96.fc11 address the issue raised 
> here or have I got this wrong?
> 

I am somewhat confused by the following - I thought that if mmap_min_addr
was >0 then you are not vulnerable.  I also thought that installing wine, OR
Crossover would set it to zero.  

I have Crossover installed and not wine, and just checked:
[mike home1 ~]$ cat /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr 
65536

This is an f11 box.  I also set the boolean by doing
# setsebool -P allow_unconfined_mmap_low 1

Now I have lost track whether this means I am vulnerable or not?
I understand that installing wine would set mmap_min_addr to zero and make the
machine vulnerable but can someone clarify so that I no longer confused?

Thanks.




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]