Re: mdadm failure in MLS Enforcing

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

 



On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 08:47 -0600, Joe Nall wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 22:17 -0600, Joe Nall wrote:
> >> mdadm runs system_u:system_r:mdadm_t:s0-s15:c0.c1023 during boot and
> >> can't access block devices that are
> >> system_u:object_r:fixed_disk_device_t:s15:c0.c1023
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485006
> >>
> >> Posted here instead of fedora-selinux because I don't think it is
> >> fedora specific.
> >>
> >> Boot avcs:
> >>
> >> node=test type=AVC msg=audit(1234315341.183:18): avc:  denied
> >> { read } for  pid=1501 comm="mdadm" name="sdb2" dev=tmpfs ino=508
> >> scontext=system_u:system_r:mdadm_t:s0-s15:c0.c1023
> >> tcontext=system_u:object_r:fixed_disk_device_t:s15:c0.c1023
> >> tclass=blk_file
> >>
> >>         Was caused by:
> >>                 Policy constraint violation.
> >>
> >>                 May require adding a type attribute to the domain or
> >> type to satisfy the constraint.
> >>
> >>                 Constraints are defined in the policy sources in
> >> policy/constraints (general), policy/mcs (MCS), and policy/mls (MLS).
> >>
> >> node=test type=AVC msg=audit(1234315341.184:19): avc:  denied
> >> { read } for  pid=1457 comm="mdadm" name=".tmp-9-1" dev=tmpfs  
> >> ino=5859
> >> scontext=system_u:system_r:mdadm_t:s0-s15:c0.c1023
> >> tcontext=system_u:object_r:device_t:s0 tclass=blk_file
> >>
> >>         Was caused by:
> >>                 Missing type enforcement (TE) allow rule.
> >>
> >>                 You can use audit2allow to generate a loadable module
> >> to allow this access.
> >>
> >> node=test type=AVC msg=audit(1234315341.188:20): avc:  denied
> >> { getattr } for  pid=1457 comm="mdadm" path="/proc/kcore" dev=proc
> >> ino=4026531986 scontext=system_u:system_r:mdadm_t:s0-s15:c0.c1023
> >> tcontext=system_u:object_r:proc_kcore_t:s15:c0.c1023 tclass=file
> >>
> >>         Was caused by:
> >>                 Policy constraint violation.
> >>
> >>                 May require adding a type attribute to the domain or
> >> type to satisfy the constraint.
> >>
> >>                 Constraints are defined in the policy sources in
> >> policy/constraints (general), policy/mcs (MCS), and policy/mls (MLS).
> >>
> >> so I added this policy:
> >>
> >> diff -up serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.fc.orig
> >> serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.fc
> >> --- serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.fc.orig	2009-02-10
> >> 19:41:17.000000000 -0600
> >> +++ serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.fc	2009-02-10
> >> 19:41:31.000000000 -0600
> >> @@ -2,4 +2,4 @@
> >>  /sbin/mdadm		--	gen_context(system_u:object_r:mdadm_exec_t,s0)
> >>  /sbin/mdmpd		--	gen_context(system_u:object_r:mdadm_exec_t,s0)
> >>
> >> -/var/run/mdadm(/.*)?		 
> >> gen_context(system_u:object_r:mdadm_var_run_t,s0)
> >> +/var/run/mdadm(/.*)?		
> >> gen_context(system_u:object_r:mdadm_var_run_t,mls_systemhigh)
> >> diff -up serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.te.orig
> >> serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.te
> >> --- serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.te.orig	2009-02-10
> >> 19:33:59.000000000 -0600
> >> +++ serefpolicy-3.5.13/policy/modules/system/raid.te	2009-02-10
> >> 19:39:58.000000000 -0600
> >> @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@ policy_module(raid, 1.7.0)
> >>  type mdadm_t;
> >>  type mdadm_exec_t;
> >>  init_daemon_domain(mdadm_t,mdadm_exec_t)
> >> +ifdef(`enable_mls',`
> >> +	init_ranged_daemon_domain(mdadm_t, mdadm_exec_t,mls_systemhigh)
> >> +')
> >> +
> >>  role system_r types mdadm_t;
> >>
> >>  type mdadm_var_run_t;
> >>
> >> which does transition to SystemHigh using run_init in permissive, but
> >> doesn't affect this bug.
> >>
> >> Clues?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't affect this bug".  Did mdadm
> > transition to systemhigh at boot or not?
> 
> no
> 
> That is why I went back and tried the run_init (which did transition)  
> and verified the /var/run/mdadm directory was SystemHigh. I also used  
> seinfo to verify that the patch had bend applied to the running  
> policy. Very confusing.

- Does it transition if in permissive mode at boot?
- Do you get any AVC or SELINUX_ERR messages at boot or upon the
run_init related to the transition itself?
- Is system_u authorized for systemhigh?

-- 
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.

[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux