On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 11:58 -0200, Martin Spinassi wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 08:30 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 08:23 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 10:06 -0200, Martin Spinassi wrote:
> > > > Hello list!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm a little stuck with selinux and postfix, hope you can give me
> > > > feedback with it.
> > > >
> > > > We're trying to add domain keys to a postfix server, but it can't open
> > > > ports used by dkim to sign the mail. Here is some output of audit.log:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > type=AVC msg=audit(1231242373.605:52): avc: denied { name_bind } for
> > > > pid=5386 comm="master" src=10026
> > > > scontext=root:system_r:postfix_master_t:s0
> > > > tcontext=system_u:object_r:postfix_master_t:s0 tclass=tcp_socket
> > > >
> > > > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1231242373.605:52): arch=c000003e syscall=49
> > > > success=no exit=-13 a0=11 a1=2b06cdbc46d0 a2=10 a3=7fffe2d2f64c items=0
> > > > ppid=1 pid=5386 auid=0 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0
> > > > fsgid=0 tty=(none) ses=3 comm="master" exe="/usr/libexec/postfix/master"
> > > > subj=root:system_r:postfix_master_t:s0 key=(null)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've allready added the port to the postfix_master_t domain with:
> > > > # semanage port -a -t postfix_master_t -p tcp 10026
> > >
> > > postfix_master_t is a domain type, i.e. a type that should only be
> > > associated with postfix master processes. You don't want to apply it to
> > > the port. So I'd delete that entry (likewise using semanage).
> > >
> > > What denial did you get originally before mapping the port to
> > > postfix_master_t? Was it just port_t originally? Looking at a copy of
> > > the reference policy, it looks like postfix_master_t is allowed
> > > name_bind permission for port_t, reserved_port_t, and smtp_port_t.
> >
> > Oh, actually, the allow rules granting name_bind to port_t and
> > reserved_port_t are conditional on allow_ypbind and disabled by default.
> >
>
> Audit2allow "recommended" to allow transition from postfix_master_t to
> port_t and then allow create socket port_t, but I didn't feel it much
> secure...what do you think?
I'm not sure I quite follow the above, as a transition usually means
that we are changing from one context to another, and there is no
transition in the above situation, just an attempt to bind to a given
port.
The actual verbatim output of audit2allow would likely be more useful.
Without any semanage entries, I would have expected it to be something
like:
module mypostfix 1.0;
require {
type postfix_master_t;
type port_t;
class tcp_socket name_bind;
}
allow postfix_master_t port_t:tcp_socket name_bind;
See for example:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-faq-fc5/#id2961385
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-user-guide/f10/en-US/sect-Security-Enhanced_Linux-Fixing_Problems-Allowing_Access_audit2allow.html
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
--
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.
