Re: [PATCH 2/2] security: Add a new func use stat to get process DAC label

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

 



On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 05:54:36PM +0800, Luyao Huang wrote:
When use qemuProcessAttach to attach a qemu process, cannot
get a right DAC label. Add a new func to get process label
via stat func. Do not remove virDomainDefGetSecurityLabelDef
before try to use stat to get process DAC label, because
There are some other func call virSecurityDACGetProcessLabel.

Signed-off-by: Luyao Huang <lhuang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
src/security/security_dac.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/security/security_dac.c b/src/security/security_dac.c
index 85253af..2977f71 100644
--- a/src/security/security_dac.c
+++ b/src/security/security_dac.c
@@ -1237,17 +1237,63 @@ virSecurityDACReserveLabel(virSecurityManagerPtr mgr ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
}

static int
+virSecurityDACGetProcessLabelInternal(pid_t pid,
+                                      virSecurityLabelPtr seclabel)
+{
+    struct stat sb;
+    char *path = NULL;
+    char *label = NULL;
+    int ret = -1;
+
+    VIR_INFO("Getting DAC user and group on process '%d'", pid);
+
+    if (virAsprintf(&path, "/proc/%d", (int) pid) < 0)
+        goto cleanup;
+

This won't work on systems without /proc.

+    if (stat(path, &sb) < 0)
+        goto cleanup;
+

Better use lstat.

+    if (virAsprintf(&label, "+%u:+%u",
+                    (unsigned int) sb.st_uid,
+                    (unsigned int) sb.st_gid) < 0)
+        goto cleanup;
+
+    if (virStrcpy(seclabel->label, label,VIR_SECURITY_LABEL_BUFLEN) == NULL)
+        goto cleanup;
+    ret = 0;
+
+cleanup:
+    VIR_FREE(path);
+    VIR_FREE(label);
+    return ret;
+}
+
+static int
virSecurityDACGetProcessLabel(virSecurityManagerPtr mgr ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
                              virDomainDefPtr def,
-                              pid_t pid ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
+                              pid_t pid,
                              virSecurityLabelPtr seclabel)
{
    virSecurityLabelDefPtr secdef =
        virDomainDefGetSecurityLabelDef(def, SECURITY_DAC_NAME);

-    if (!secdef || !seclabel)
+    if (!seclabel)

I wonder whether this won't screw up domain definitions that don't
want to have any seclabel set (those defined with XML), I need to
figure that out.

        return -1;

+    if (secdef == NULL) {
+        virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
+                       _("missing label for DAC security "
+                         "driver in domain %s"), def->name);
+

This should probably be VIR_DEBUG or VIR_INFO, otherwise you report
error without erroring out (returning -1) and it gets saved for the
connection.

+        if (virSecurityDACGetProcessLabelInternal(pid, seclabel) < 0) {
+            virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
+                           _("Cannot get process %d DAC label"),pid);
+            return -1;

Also two errors will be reported if this fails.

Martin

+        }
+
+        return 0;
+    }
+
    if (secdef->label)
        ignore_value(virStrcpy(seclabel->label, secdef->label,
                               VIR_SECURITY_LABEL_BUFLEN));
--
1.8.3.1

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]