I'm not too sure if I should post this with SELinux,
refpolicy, or kernel.org,(or even wpasupplicant);
so I decided to do all to the best of my knowledge.
when using the ath9k module with the latest git
kernel(or atleast a few days old); and the latest refpolicy (svn)
I'm seeing this avc denial show up:
Dec 16 12:33:32 name kernel: [ 20.415785] type=1400
audit(1229459612.411:3): avc: denied { sys_module } for pid=2510
comm="wpa_supplicant" capability=16
scontext=system_u:system_r:system_dbusd_t:s0
tcontext=system_u:system_r:system_dbusd_t:s0 tclass=capability
Dec 16 12:33:32 name kernel: [ 20.428494] type=1300
audit(1229459612.411:3): arch=40000003 syscall=54 success=no exit=-19
a0=9 a1=8933 a2=bfadd94c a3=bfadd94c items=0 ppid=1 pid=2510
auid=4294967295 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0
fsgid=0 tty=(none) ses=4294967295 comm="wpa_supplicant"
exe="/sbin/wpa_supplicant" subj=system_u:system_r:system_dbusd_t:s0
key=(null)
the allow rule is:(with ath9k module)
allow system_dbusd_t self:capability sys_module;
which in turn will be rejected by checkpolicy
(capability 16)
when compiling the policy.
If I use the madwifi module the avc is similar but produces
allow system_dbusd_t self:capability { sys_admin }
(capability 12)
and will be accepted by checkpolicy.
As for setup I'm using NetworkManager from
intrepid as well as wpasupplicant
Any info would be appreciated so I can test this module out
and feel better knowing the module is not being denied in any
way, that might cause a false positive, or some other weirdness.
regards;
--
Justin P. Mattock
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
