Re: [PATCH][RFC] selinuxfs: saner handling of policy reloads

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

 



On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:35 AM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Thanks Al.
> >
> > Giving this a very quick look, I like the code simplifications that
> > come out of this change and I'll trust you on the idea that this
> > approach is better from a VFS perspective.
> >
> > While the reject_all() permission hammer is good, I do want to make
> > sure we are covered from a file labeling perspective; even though the
> > DAC/reject_all() check hits first and avoids the LSM inode permission
> > hook, we still want to make sure the files are labeled properly.  It
> > looks like given the current SELinux Reference Policy this shouldn't
> > be a problem, it will be labeled like most everything else in
> > selinuxfs via genfscon (SELinux policy construct).  I expect those
> > with custom SELinux policies will have something similar in place with
> > a sane default that would cover the /sys/fs/selinux/.swapover
> > directory but I did add the selinux-refpol list to the CC line just in
> > case I'm being dumb and forgetting something important with respect to
> > policy.
> >
> > The next step is to actually boot up a kernel with this patch and make
> > sure it doesn't break anything.  Simply booting up a SELinux system
> > and running 'load_policy' a handful of times should exercise the
> > policy (re)load path, and if you want a (relatively) simple SELinux
> > test suite you can find one here:
> >
> > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite
> >
> > The README.md should have the instructions necessary to get it
> > running.  If you can't do that, and no one else on the mailing list is
> > able to test this out, I'll give it a go but expect it to take a while
> > as I'm currently swamped with reviews and other stuff.
>
> It does survive repeated load_policy (as well as semodule -d/semodule -e,
> with expected effect on /booleans, AFAICS).  As for the testsuite...
> No regressions compared to clean -rc5, but then there are (identical)
> failures on both - "Failed 8/76 test programs. 88/1046 subtests failed."
> Incomplete defconfig, at a guess...

All tests passed for me using the defconfig fragment from the selinux-testsuite.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux