Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> 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
> > setcap cap_audit_write=ei /usr/bin/python
> > 4) run audit-wrapper
> > 5) check audit log for audit records.
> >
> > I also ran audit_test.py without the wrapper to verify that no audit
> > would occur.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > audit-wrapper.c
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> <snip>
> > cap_t cur = cap_from_text("cap_audit_write+i");
> > int ret = cap_set_proc(cur);
> > if (ret) {
> > perror("cap_set_proc");
> > return 1;
> > }
> > cap_free(cur);
>
> Looks like you could make your wrapper generic for any capabilities by
> having it copy the permitted (or effective) set to the inheritable set.
> Something like this:
> cap_t cur = cap_get_proc();
> cap_value_t caps[1];
> cap_flag_value_t value;
> int i, rc;
> for (i = 0; i < CAP_LAST_CAP; i++) {
> rc = cap_get_flag(cur, i, CAP_PERMITTED, &value);
> if (rc < 0) {
> perror("cap_get_flag");
> return 1;
> }
> caps[0] = i;
> rc = cap_set_flag(cur, CAP_INHERITABLE, 1, caps, value);
> if (rc < 0) {
> perror("cap_set_flag");
> return 1;
> }
> }
> rc = cap_set_proc(cur);
> if (rc < 0) {
> perror("cap_set_proc");
> return 1;
> }
> cap_free(cur);
Neat.
> Serge - is there any easier way?
Not that I can think of.
-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.
