Re: [refpolicy] [PATCH] revise roles/dbadm.te (Re: dbadm.pp is not available in selinux-policy package)

[Daniel J Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/13/2010 09:17 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>  On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 09:28 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> > (2010/04/12 23:09), Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 14:29 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> >>> (2010/04/08 21:15), Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >>>> As Dominick stated.  I prefer to think in terms of two different roles.
> >>>>    Login Roles, and Roles to execute in when you have privileges (IE
> Root).
> >>>>
> >>>> Login Roles/Types
> >>>> staff_t, user_t, unconfined_t, xguest_t, guest_t
> >>>>
> >>>> Three interfaces can be used to create confined login users.
> >>>>
> >>>> userdom_restricted_user_template(guest)
> >>>> userdom_restricted_xwindows_user_template(xguest)
> >>>> userdom_unpriv_user_template(staff)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Admin Roles/Types
> >>>> logadm_t, webadm_t, secadm_t, auditadm_t
> >>>>
> >>>> The following interface can be used to create an Admin ROle
> >>>> userdom_base_user_template(logadm)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> sysadm_t is sort of a hybrid, most people use it as an Admin Role.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I imagine that you login as a confined user and then use sudo/newrole to
> >>>> switch roles to one of the admin roles.
> >>>
> >>> The attached patch revises roles/dbadm.te (to be applied on the upstream
> >>> reference policy). It uses userdom_base_user_template() instead of the
> >>> userdom_unpriv_user_template(), and should be launched via sudo/newrole.
> >>> In the default, it intends the dbadm_r role to be launched by staff_r role.
> >>
> >> Why does dbadm need to run setfiles?
> >
> > The database files (typically, /var/lib/(se)?pgsql/*) have to be labeled
> > correctly, so I thought dbadm needs to run setfiles.
> > However, as long as they initialize database files using init script,
> > initrc_t domain performs this initial labeling, so it might not be necessary.
> >
> > On the other hand, PostgreSQL support a feature to use multiple disks
> > within a single database instance for performance utilization.
> > (Called TABLESPACE; I don't know whether MySQL has such a feature.)
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-08/msg00142.php
> >
> > It requires administrators to assign proper security context on the secondary
> > directory, or to mount the secondary disk with context='...' option.
> >
> > Is there any good idea?
> >
> > Or, it should not be a task for dbadm?
>  
>  Ok, the transition for setfiles is fine.
>   
I would be carefull with this.  Since setfiles can take a parameter of a
file context file.  I think it would be better to only give
relabefrom/relabelto privs for all labels dbadm_t can manage.  Then
figure out what access is required to mount.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkvEioAACgkQrlYvE4MpobPgIwCgtK9sqyPvRhj90hfQFZU+ZlpJ
> H6UAoIrrEMw2dv/1/QR9Oi/J1iXBhqrx
> =dfmE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----