|
Using FC12, fully updated. I have two basic, but
possibly related questions. The first is regarding a change to the
targeted policy that resulted in an install error for our Trusted RUBIX
policy when using the userdom_unpriv_user_template interface, as off the last targeted policy update. The
second are denials I now receive after changing our policy to use a
different interface. First issue: Our policy had been declaring a custom role (rubix_dbadm_r in this case) using the following: userdom_unpriv_user_template(rubix_dbadm) corecmd_exec_shell(rubix_dbadm_t) Originally, this worked for its intended purposes with no selinux denials. As of installing policy update: Name : selinux-policy-targeted Arch : noarch Version : 3.6.32 Release : 103.fc12 When we build our policy we received the following errors: rubix-dev.te:175: Warning: xserver_user_client() has been deprecated, please use xserver_user_x_domain_template instead. Installing rubix-dev-targeted policy libsepol.print_missing_requirements: rubix-dev's global requirements were not met: type/attribute xdrawable_type (No such file or directory). libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox: Link packages failed (No such file or directory). semodule: Failed! I had been receiving the depreciated warning a while (ignoring at my own peril), the link error was new to this targeted policy version. I also received errors while installing selinux-policy-targeted rpm itself, stating a different requirement not being met in the then installed rubix-dev policy. I do not recall the exact error message, but remember it was an X related type that was missing. Noting the X connection between the depreciated function and the link error, I traced the reference to the depreciated 'xserver_user_client' interface to 'userdom_unpriv_user_template'. I did not call 'xserver_user_client' directly. I replaced the call to 'userdom_unpriv_user_template' with a call to 'userdom_restricted_user_template' and my then policy installed properly. But using the 'userdom_restricted_user_template ' interface, now I notice some selinux denials during a call to newrole, which is my second question below. I am not sure that the change to the new interface is the cause of the denials, I am just now noticing them. Should the 'userdom_unpriv_user_template' interface either be fixed or removed from the userdom *.if file? Second issue: The rubix_dbadm_r role is now created with: userdom_restricted_user_template(rubix_dbadm) corecmd_exec_shell(rubix_dbadm_t) When I perform a newrole, I receive denials as follows (note, I am in permissive mode so the newrole succeeds): $ id -Z rxdev_u:staff_r:staff_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 $ ls -Z `tty` crw--w----. warner tty rxdev_u:object_r:user_devpts_t:s0 /dev/pts/4 $ newrole -r rubix_dbadm_r Password: $ Note: I am a bit surprised that the tty type is user_devpts_t and not staff_devpts_t, though I am very unfamiliar with this. Mar 22 11:04:03 localhost setroubleshoot: SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/newrole "write" access on /var/run/dbus/system_bus_socket. For complete SELinux messages. run sealert -l 95fc56ee-8711-460c-874b-6ddb91cc9add Mar 22 11:04:03 localhost setroubleshoot: SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/newrole "write" access on /var/run/dbus/system_bus_socket. For complete SELinux messages. run sealert -l 95fc56ee-8711-460c-874b-6ddb91cc9add # more securetty_types sysadm_tty_device_t user_tty_device_t staff_tty_device_t user_devpts_t devpts_t # Are these denials related to how I create the rubix_dbadm_r role? Is there a proper way to create a role suitable for auser to transition into and as a potential default logon user role? I fully admit my choice of creating a role was through observation of other policy code and trail and error. It would be nice to have a definitive word on it. Thanks, Andy |
