Quoting Xavier Toth (txtoth@xxxxxxxxx):
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 14:20 -0600, Xavier Toth wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Quoting Xavier Toth (txtoth@xxxxxxxxx):
> >> >> I was not putting capabilities on the script but rather on a compiled
> >> >> wrapper which execs a python script in which I need to do auditing.
> >> >> Will this not work?
> >> >
> >> > No, because of the way capabilities are re-calculated on exec().
> >> >
> >> > pI' = pI
> >> > pP' = (X&fP) | (pI & fI)
> >> > pE' = fE ? pP' : 0
> >> >
> >> > So since the interpreter has fI=fP=fE=0 and is not setuid root (which
> >> > would fill in fP and/or fE to emulate privileged root), pP' and pE' will
> >> > be empty after exec().
> >> >
> >> > Now you could use a wrapper as follows: Have the wrapper fill pI,
> >> > and then fill fI on the python interpreter. Any user who has an
> >> > empty pI (which generally is all users) will execute python scripts
> >> > with no privilege, but when the wrapper execs the script, pP' will
> >> > be filled with (pI&fI) = full.
> >> >
> >> > -serge
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the clarification.
> >> For anyone one that is interested I've included some test code. The
> >> wrapper is a modified version of a wrapper Stephen sent me a link to.
> >> Basic steps to test are:
> >> 1) edit the wrapper to set the path to the audit_test.py script
> >> 2) compiler the wrapper
> >> gcc -o audit-wrapper audit-wrapper.c -lcap
> >> 3) set the capabilities on the wrapper and python
> >> setcap cap_audit_write,cap_setfcap=epi audit-wrapper
> >
> > Why cap_setfcap (set file capability)?
>
> The wrapper adds the 'i' back to cap_audit_write as it goes away when
> audit-wrapper runs.
> I was printing the capabilities in the wrapper for
> debug purposes when I noticed that it capabilities were "=
> cap_audit_write,cap_setfcap+ep". I think without the i cap_audit_write
> can't be inherited by the child process.
>
> > And do you need to set fI on the wrapper at all, given that it isn't
> > inheriting anything from its caller?
>
> Without cap_setfcap cap_set_proc fails, without cap_audit_write
> cap_set_proc fails (see cap_set_proc man page).
>
> >
> >> setcap cap_audit_write=ei /usr/bin/python
> >
> > Is setting fE required on the interpreter?
>
> I tried 'i' only it wouldn't work without 'e'.
Right, without 'e' the final exec() will end up with
cap_audit_write in pP' but not pE', so you won't be
able to actually exercise the privilege (without using
cap_set_proc() which I assume python doesn't support).
It's no big deal, but your use of fI still is more liberal
than it needs to be. The following should suffice:
setcap cap_audit_write=p audit-wrapper
setcap cap_audit_write=ei /usr/bin/python
Now anyone running audit-wrapper will get cap_audit_write
in pP', but not be able to exercise it (it's not in pE').
Audit-wrapper can put cap_audit_write into pI because it's
in pP. Finally, when audit-wrapper execs the python script,
that will run with pP'=pI'=pP'=cap_audit_write.
-serge
--
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.
