Re: using an interface defined in another loaded module
by SZIGETVÁRI János
Dear Gary,
Thanks a zillion times for your help, the building of the policy works fine
now that I have copied the .if file of the submodule to the directory you
mentioned!
I did not know I was reqired to copy the module's interface file to
SELinux's include dirs to make it available for other modules to use.
BTW, I was building my module from within my "policy builder and installer"
script using the "traditional" way of:
# make -f /usr/share/selinux/devel/Makefile A.pp
Now the build process works, thanks to your suggestion!
Best Regards,
János
--
Janos SZIGETVARI
RHCE, License no. 150-053-692
<https://www.redhat.com/rhtapps/verify/?certId=150-053-692>
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/janosszigetvari
E-mail: janos(a)szigetvari.com, jszigetvari(a)gmail.com
Phone: +36209440412 (Hungary)
__@__˚V˚
Make the switch to open (source) applications, protocols, formats now:
- windows -> Linux, iexplore -> Firefox, msoffice -> LibreOffice
- msn -> jabber protocol (Pidgin, Google Talk)
- mp3 -> ogg, wmv -> ogg, jpg -> png, doc/xls/ppt -> odt/ods/odp
Gary Tierney <gary.tierney(a)gmx.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. ápr. 3., Sze,
17:14):
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:34:08AM +0200, SZIGETVÁRI János wrote:
> >Could anyone please give me some insight on this?
> >
> >Thanks a lot!
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> How are you building and installing your policy modules? The interface
> definitions (.if files) aren't preserved in the compiled policy package,
> so are typically kept elsewhere. On Fedora this is under
> /usr/share/selinux/devel/include and its associated subdirectories
> (which are recursively walked to find .if files when building policy
> using the refpolicy framework, i.e., the selinux-policy-devel package).
>
> So it should be as simple as copying your .if files to:
> /usr/share/selinux/devel/include (though the "services" subdir is likely
> more appropriate).
>
> Thanks,
> Gary.
>
> >Best Regards,
> >János Szigetvári
> >
> >SZIGETVÁRI János <jszigetvari(a)gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. márc.
> >31., V, 13:47):
> >
> >> ... snip ...
> >_______________________________________________
> >selinux mailing list -- selinux(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >To unsubscribe send an email to selinux-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> >List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> >List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/selinux@lists.fedoraproject...
>
>
2 years, 10 months
- 4
- 9
Initial context for init
by Philip Seeley
Hi all,
Quick question is:
In the targeted policy should init run SystemHigh as it does in the mls
policy?
The background:
We're setting up a targeted system where we confine all users and remove
the unconfined policy module, but we also enable polyinstantiation of /tmp
and /var/tmp.
If we ssh in as a staff_u user phil and elevate to root/sysadm_r then we
have a context of:
staff_u:sysadm_r:sysadm_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
And therefore /var/tmp is:
drwxrwxrwt. root root system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 /var/tmp
Which is really:
drwxrwxrwt. root root
system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 /var/tmp-inst/system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023_phil
The real /var/tmp is:
drwxrwxrwt. root root system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0 /var/tmp
Now if we use run_init to update an RPM that contains a post install
script, rpm can't create the temporary script file:
# run_init bash -c 'rpm -i
--force /root/libselinux-2.0.94-7.el6.x86_64.rpm'
Authenticating phil.
Password:
error: error creating temporary file /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.atkHTf: Permission
denied
error: Couldn't create temporary file for %post
(libselinux-2.0.94-7.el6.x86_64): Permission denied
Note: you need to use run_init as the rpm might restart a service, e.g. the
sssd rpm.
We've traced this to the /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/initrc_context file
which contains:
system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0
So we transition to initrc_t and then to rpm_t without any categories, but
because the polyinstantiated /var/tmp directory has c0.c1023 we get denied.
Normally in targeted init runs unconfined, but we've removed this.
type=AVC msg=audit(1467342325.016:716): avc: denied { read } for
pid=2779 comm="rpm" name="system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023_phil"
dev=dm-0 ino=1966082 scontext=system_u:system_r:rpm_t:s0
tcontext=system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tclass=dir
It works if we change initrc_context to:
system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
We don't see the issue under mls because the default initrc_context is:
system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0-s15:c0.c1023
We've traces this back through the selinux-policy src RPM and to the
upstream refpolicy and see that config/appconfig-mcs/initrc_context is:
system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0
whereas config/appconfig-mls/initrc_context is:
system_u:system_r:initrc_t:s0-mls_systemhigh
So under mls init's context is SystemHigh, but under mcs/targeted it
doesn't have any categories.
So the long question is should config/appconfig-mcs/initrc_context really
be:
system_u:system_r:initrc_t:mcs_systemhigh
as it seems odd that the more secure mls policy would run init at
SystemHigh but targeted doesn't.
Thanks
Phil Seeley
3 years, 1 month
- 3
- 3
file creation and selinux
by Ed Greshko
Hi,
I'm not well versed in selinux and I rarely have run into issues with it.
However, one point that I thought was true doesn't seem to be true. I was under the
impression that when a file is created and the context for it is defined in the policy it
would acquire it.
For example,
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ pwd
/home/egreshko
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ touch .fetchmailrc
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ ls -Z .fetchmailrc
unconfined_u:object_r:user_home_t:s0 .fetchmailrc
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ restorecon .fetchmailrc
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ ls -Z .fetchmailrc
unconfined_u:object_r:fetchmail_home_t:s0 .fetchmailrc
Shouldn't the context have been correct when the file was created? How is an average user
to know they may need to add the additional step.
Thanks
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color scheme
3 years, 2 months
- 3
- 4
- ← Newer
- 1
- Older →