13 Replies Latest reply: Aug 8, 2012 5:23 AM by Neil Wilson RSS

    Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives

    Neil Wilson Newbie

      I'm having a bit of fun with CentOS 5 and SL 5 builds using the meta-appliance.

       

      I'm using a JEOS appliance definition file.

       

      name: JEOS

      os:

        name: centos

        version: 5

      appliances:

        - jeos

      with a base jeos.appl file of:

       

      name: JEOS

      summary: RPM Based JEOS

      hardware:

        partitions:

          "/":

            size: 5

            type: ext4

       

      This setup works just fine with Enterprise 6 derivatives and Fedora builds.

       

      On Enterprise 5 X86_64 derivatives the build issues a warning

       

       

      W, [2012-07-03T08:53:19.088481 #19115]  WARN -- : Loading SELinux policy failed. SELinux may be not fully initialized.

       

      and this seems to lead to errors in using the image:

       

       

      Jul  3 09:19:01 srv-5qvia kernel: type=1400 audit(1341307140.893:31): avc:  denied  { read } for  pid=1725 comm="dbus-daemon" name="config" dev=vda1 ino=133576 scontext=system_u:system_r:system_dbusd_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0 tclass=file

      Jul  3 09:19:01 srv-5qvia kernel: inode_doinit_with_dentry:  context_to_sid(unconfined_u:object_r:etc_t:s0) returned 22 for dev=vda1 ino=132373

      Jul  3 09:19:01 srv-5qvia kernel: inode_doinit_with_dentry:  context_to_sid(unconfined_u:object_r:etc_t:s0) returned 22 for dev=vda1 ino=133285

      Jul  3 09:19:03 srv-5qvia kernel: inode_doinit_with_dentry:  context_to_sid(unconfined_u:object_r:etc_t:s0) returned 22 for dev=vda1 ino=133871

      Jul  3 09:19:04 srv-5qvia kernel: inode_doinit_with_dentry:  context_to_sid(unconfined_u:object_r:etc_t:s0) returned 22 for dev=vda1 ino=132394

      Jul  3 09:19:17 srv-5qvia kernel: inode_doinit_with_dentry:  context_to_sid(unconfined_u:object_r:etc_t:s0) returned 22 for dev=vda1 ino=131998

      Jul  3 09:19:17 srv-5qvia kernel: inode_doinit_with_dentry:  context_to_sid(unconfined_u:object_r:etc_t:s0) returned 22 for dev=vda1 ino=128290

      Jul  3 09:19:17 srv-5qvia kernel: inode_doinit_with_dentry:  context_to_sid(unconfined_u:object_r:selinux_config_t:s0) returned 22 for dev=vda1 ino=133938

       

       

      which for Scientific Linux 5 means that it won't pick up a DHCP address (although CentOS5 appears to).

       

      On Enterprise 5 the i686 version build just fails with:

       

      F, [2012-07-03T08:56:55.173875 #21044] FATAL -- : RuntimeError: An error occurred while executing command: 'appliance-creator -d -v -t 'build/appliances/i686/centos/5/JEOS/1.0/centos-plugin/tmp' --cache=/var/cache/boxgrinder/rpms-cache/i686/centos/5 --config 'build/appliances/i686/centos/5/JEOS/1.0/centos-plugin/tmp/JEOS.ks' -o 'build/appliances/i686/centos/5/JEOS/1.0/centos-plugin/tmp' --name 'JEOS' --vmem 256 --vcpu 1 --format raw', process exited with wrong exit status: 1

       

      Something seems to be missing from the default base package list. Anybody any idea what it is?

        • 1. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
          Marek Goldmann Master

          Hi Neil,

           

          Do you have more logs from the fail on CentOS5? The most important part is above or below the RuntimeError line you pasted above.

           

          --Marek

          • 2. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
            Neil Wilson Newbie

            Yep. Very similar to the trace in https://issues.jboss.org/browse/BGBUILD-350

             

            for the i686 failure.

             

            Doing a side by side analysis on the logs to get more data.

            • 3. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
              Neil Wilson Newbie

              Ok.

               

              On i686 you get

               

               

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:03.179845 #22205] DEBUG -- : warning: %post(pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5_5.2.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127

               

              which you don't on x86_64.

               

              Creator then fails on grub installation with

               

               

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.231114 #22205] DEBUG -- : Installing grub to /dev/loop0

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.262257 #22205] DEBUG -- : Installing: hdparm                       ##################### [192/192]

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.262539 #22205] DEBUG -- :

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.263016 #22205] DEBUG -- : Traceback (most recent call last):

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.263387 #22205] DEBUG -- : File "/usr/bin/appliance-creator", line 164, in <module>

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.263896 #22205] DEBUG -- : sys.exit(main())

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.264207 #22205] DEBUG -- : File "/usr/bin/appliance-creator", line 150, in main

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.264634 #22205] DEBUG -- : creator.configure()

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.265116 #22205] DEBUG -- : File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgcreate/creator.py", line 743, in configure

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.273391 #22205] DEBUG -- : self._create_bootconfig()

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.273813 #22205] DEBUG -- : File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/appcreate/appliance.py", line 374, in _create_bootconfig

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.276317 #22205] DEBUG -- : self._install_grub()

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.276767 #22205] DEBUG -- : File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/appcreate/appliance.py", line 305, in _install_grub

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.277221 #22205] DEBUG -- : stdin=subprocess.PIPE)

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.277622 #22205] DEBUG -- : File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/subprocess.py", line 672, in __init__

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.278118 #22205] DEBUG -- : errread, errwrite)

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.278397 #22205] DEBUG -- : File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/subprocess.py", line 1202, in _execute_child

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.279051 #22205] DEBUG -- : raise child_exception

              D, [2012-07-03T09:39:30.279510 #22205] DEBUG -- : OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory

               

              • 4. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                Neil Wilson Newbie

                On X86_64 with SELinux you get

                 

                 

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:10.169791 #3215] TRACE -- : Loading SElinux policy...

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:10.169975 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_init "/" 32

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:10.172035 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: guestfsd: main_loop: proc 36 (exists) took 0.08 seconds^M

                guestfsd: main_loop: new request, len 0x34

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.430448 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_init = 0

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.430698 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_rm "/augeas/load//incl[. != '/etc/sysconfig/selinux']"

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.432367 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: guestfsd: main_loop: proc 16 (aug_init) took 5.25 seconds^M

                guestfsd: main_loop: new request, len 0x60

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.439541 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_rm = 208

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.439767 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_load

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.441174 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: guestfsd: main_loop: proc 22 (aug_rm) took 0.00 seconds^M

                guestfsd: main_loop: new request, len 0x28

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.623759 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_load = 0

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.623987 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_get "/files/etc/sysconfig/selinux/SELINUX"

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.625547 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: guestfsd: main_loop: proc 27 (aug_load) took 0.18 seconds^M

                guestfsd: main_loop: new request, len 0x50

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.626276 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_get = "permissive"

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.626387 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: sh "/usr/sbin/load_policy"

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.627923 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: guestfsd: main_loop: proc 19 (aug_get) took 0.00 seconds^M

                guestfsd: main_loop: new request, len 0x44

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.630167 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: mount --bind /dev /sysroot/dev

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.714249 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: mount --bind /dev/pts /sysroot/dev/pts

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.798630 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: mount --bind /proc /sysroot/proc

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.883450 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: mount --bind /selinux /sysroot/selinux

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:15.967626 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: mount --bind /sys /sysroot/sys

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:16.112315 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: /bin/sh -c /usr/sbin/load_policy

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:28.269882 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: libsepol.policydb_write:

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:28.271563 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: Discarding booleans and conditional rules

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:41.772730 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: libsepol.policydb_write: Discarding booleans and conditional rules

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:45.898444 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: libsepol.context_read_and_validate: invalid security context

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:45.900373 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: libsepol.policydb_to_image: new policy image is invalid

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:45.901912 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: libsepol.policydb_to_image: could not create policy image

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.063137 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: /usr/sbin/load_policy:  Can't load policy:  No such file or directory

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.170764 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: umount /sysroot/sys

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.245151 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: umount /sysroot/selinux

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.300414 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: umount /sysroot/proc

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.353215 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: umount /sysroot/dev/pts

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.406380 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: umount /sysroot/dev

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.460562 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: guestfsd: error: libsepol.policydb_write: Discarding booleans and conditional rules^M

                libsepol.policydb_write: Discarding booleans and conditional rules^M

                libsepol.context_read_and_validate: invalid security context^M

                libsepol.policydb_to_image: new policy image is invalid^M

                libsepol.policydb_to_image: could not create policy image^M

                /usr/sbin/load_policy:  Can't load policy:  No such file or directory

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.462235 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS:

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.462492 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: sh = NULL (error)

                W, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.462792 #3215]  WARN -- : Loading SELinux policy failed. SELinux may be not fully initialized.

                D, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.463245 #3215] DEBUG -- : GFS: aug_close

                T, [2012-07-02T11:45:46.467022 #3215] TRACE -- : GFS: guestfsd: main_loop: proc 111 (sh) took 30.83 seconds^M

                 

                 

                 

                 

                So looks like two separate issues.

                • 5. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                  Marek Goldmann Master

                  Neil,

                   

                  What do you mean by SELinux enabled? SELinux running in permissive or enforcing mode? Enforcing mode will not play nicely with BG and is unsupported. On the other hand permissive mode shouldn't hurt BoxGrinder builds.

                   

                  --Marek

                  • 6. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                    Neil Wilson Newbie

                    It's just a standard build on the meta-appliance.

                     

                    So whatever you guys set it to.

                     

                    What appears to be happening is that the SEL tags on the files aren't been set correctly, so when the image is booted you get the 'dentry' errors.

                     

                    Again its all default build stuff.

                    • 7. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                      msavy Novice

                      I've had a look at this, I think it might just be that selinux is set into permissive mode and therefore spits out warning messages, and does not actually do anthing (but probably annoy you).  We're looking at selinux in the near future, but have plenty of other issues that we're looking to address more immediately.

                      • 8. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                        Neil Wilson Newbie

                        I hate to point this out but I suspect that it isn't much to do with SElinux and more to do with.

                         

                         

                        D, [2012-07-03T09:39:03.179845 #22205] DEBUG -- : warning: %post(pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5_5.2.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127.

                        above.

                         

                        Which is stopping the i686 build from completing.

                         

                         

                         


                        • 9. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                          Marek Goldmann Master

                          Such post failures can be related to SELinux. Could you please check your SELinux settings and paste the /ets/sysconfig/selinux file content?

                           

                          --Marek

                          • 10. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                            Neil Wilson Newbie

                            Marek,

                             

                            As I mentioned above it's on the meta appliance that the el5 i686 build is failing.

                             

                            Are you saying that the meta appliance is broken and that I shouldn't use that?

                             

                            Rgs

                             

                            NeilW

                            • 11. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                              Marek Goldmann Master

                              Which meta appliance version you use? Which format? I sassume it's 64 bit, correct?

                               

                              I checked 1.7, 64 bit, on EC2:

                               

                              $ cat /etc/sysconfig/selinux 
                              # This file controls the state of SELinux on the system.
                              # SELINUX= can take one of these three values:
                              #    enforcing - SELinux security policy is enforced.
                              #    permissive - SELinux prints warnings instead of enforcing.
                              #    disabled - SELinux is fully disabled.
                              SELINUX=permissive
                              # SELINUXTYPE= type of policy in use. Possible values are:
                              #    targeted - Only targeted network daemons are protected.
                              #    strict - Full SELinux protection.
                              SELINUXTYPE=targeted
                              

                               

                              It should be fine with permissive.

                               

                              --Marek

                              • 12. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                                Neil Wilson Newbie

                                Unfortunately not.

                                 

                                I'm using the RAW x86_64 appliance at http://boxgrinder.org/download/boxgrinder-build-meta-appliance/

                                 

                                It's marked as 1.7 on the web page but comes up as "BoxGrinder Meta Appliance 1.8 "

                                 

                                Kernel is

                                 

                                "Linux srv-h90ja 2.6.42.3-2.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Feb 9 01:42:06 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux"

                                 

                                Running a centos 5 i686 build using the appliance files at the top of this thread gives me the same problem.

                                 

                                "D, [2012-08-08T05:14:55.833102 #3693] DEBUG -- : warning: %post(pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5_5.2.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127"

                                • 13. Re: Problems with Enterprise v5 derivatives
                                  Neil Wilson Newbie

                                  Just to be sure SELinux file is the same :

                                  # This file controls the state of SELinux on the system.

                                  # SELINUX= can take one of these three values:

                                  #          enforcing - SELinux security policy is enforced.

                                  #          permissive - SELinux prints warnings instead of enforcing.

                                  #          disabled - SELinux is fully disabled.

                                  SELINUX=permissive

                                  # SELINUXTYPE= type of policy in use. Possible values are:

                                  #          targeted - Only targeted network daemons are protected.

                                  #          strict - Full SELinux protection.

                                  SELINUXTYPE=targeted