Daniel J Walsh
dwalsh at redhat.com
Tue Sep 3 17:54:08 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 09/03/2013 12:29 PM, Michael scherer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:48:52AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:10:32 -0400 Jay Greguske <jgregusk at redhat.com>
>>> If we had SELinux policy enabled on the builders and used MLS on the
>>> chroots that would mitigate chroot-to-chroot attacks. I'm not sure if
>>> policy could prevent a chroot'ed process from getting access to the
>>> builder's certificate. If it could, I think getting SELinux working on
>>> the builders would be an easier path than re-writing koji to use VMs.
>>> Maybe someone with more expertise could comment on the latter issue.
>> In the past we had selinux disabled on the builders, as mock didn't
>> handle selinux very well at all and there were issues. (even in
>> permissive mode).
>> With this switch to Fedora 19 for builders, we also enabled selinux in
>> permissive mode to gather information on any outstanding issues/avcs.
>> Ideally I would like to get them all to enforcing and make sure we lock
>> down the builds as much as we are able from the vm.
> the main issue is that mock should do the transition to a different domain
> once it run anything in chroot. I do have a patch but I was not able to
> make a policy for the transition ( or my patch is buggy ) and I didn't look
> at it since a few weeks. I can send it if someone want to take a look.
Yes The builders should run each mock with a unique MCS Label and then lock
them down with SELinux. I would be willing to help with this.
This would be the easiest solution to the problem of separating out the chroots.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the devel