-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/15/2010 01:55 PM, Chad Sellers wrote:
> On 12/13/10 1:39 PM, "Daniel J Walsh" <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Currently load_policy will just fail without a decent error message.
>
> Note:
>
> The patch has to check if load_policy failed on a disabled machine, in
> order to not report an error.
>>
diff --git a/policycoreutils/load_policy/load_policy.c
b/policycoreutils/load_policy/load_policy.c
index 47d9b0f..566565f 100644
- --- a/policycoreutils/load_policy/load_policy.c
+++ b/policycoreutils/load_policy/load_policy.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
@@ -23,6 +24,14 @@ void usage(char *progname)
exit(1);
}
+char *policy_path(void) {
+ char *path=NULL;
+ if (asprintf(&path, "%s.%d", selinux_binary_policy_path(),
security_policyvers()) < 0) {
+ return NULL;
+ }
+ return path;
+}
+
> This function will return a bogus result if any error occurs in
> security_policyvers(). The only likely candidate for that is if SELinux is
> disabled, which this theoretically should not be called in. However, that
> isn't true (more on that later). So, I get messages like this:
> [root@f14 ~]# load_policy -i
> load_policy: Can't load policy file /etc/selinux/targeted/policy/policy.-1:
> No such file or directory
> The -1 comes from the error return code from security_policyvers().
> More importantly, this just assumes that the path computed here and in
> libselinux are the same. Since libselinux searches back for policy versions,
> this isn't necessarily true.
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int ret, opt, quiet = 0, nargs, init=0, enforce=0;
@@ -64,6 +73,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
"%s: Warning! Boolean file argument (%s) is no longer
supported, installed booleans file is always used. Continuing...\n",
argv[0], argv[optind++]);
}
+ errno = 0;
if (init) {
if (is_selinux_enabled() == 1) {
/* SELinux is already enabled, we should not do an initial load
again */
@@ -76,9 +86,11 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
if (ret != 0 ) {
if (enforce > 0) {
/* SELinux in enforcing mode but load_policy failed */
+ char *path=policy_path();
fprintf(stderr,
- - _("%s: Can't load policy and enforcing mode
requested: %s\n"),
- - argv[0], strerror(errno));
+ _("%s: Can't load policy file %s and enforcing
mode
requested: %s\n"),
+ argv[0], path, strerror(errno));
+ free(path);
> This assumes errno is set by selinux_init_load_policy() (more on this
> below).
exit(3);
}
}
@@ -86,9 +98,16 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
else {
ret = selinux_mkload_policy(1);
}
- - if (ret < 0) {
- - fprintf(stderr, _("%s: Can't load policy: %s\n"),
- - argv[0], strerror(errno));
+
+ /* selinux_init_load_policy returns -1 if it did not load_policy
+ * On SELinux disabled system it will always return -1
+ * So check errno to see if anything went wrong
+ */
+ if (ret < 0 && errno != 0) {
+ char *path=policy_path();
+ fprintf(stderr, _("%s: Can't load policy file %s: %s\n"),
+ argv[0], path, strerror(errno));
+ free(path);
> This assumes that errno is set properly by selinux_init_load_policy() or
> selinux_mkload_policy(). It's not. For instance, if /selinux can't be
> mounted (because SELinux is disabled), errno will be set to ENODEV. So, this
> new errno check doesn't seem to help here. For instance, I booted my F14
> system with selinux=0 on the kernel command-line. Then:
> [root@f14 ~]# load_policy -i
> load_policy: Can't load policy file /etc/selinux/targeted/policy/policy.-1:
> No such file or directory
> I'd say we either need a proper communication channel (e.g. return code or
> start setting errno properly) between libselinux and load_policy, or we need
> libselinux to handle everything (including logging) itself.
Libraries should not log. We should just set errno within libselinux to
0 if SELinux is disabled. If the goal was to disable SELinux. Which
might be the real problem is we are disabling SELInux with the
load_policy call.
> Thanks,
> Chad
exit(2);
}
exit(0);
>>
The original problem this is trying to solve was Eric was dealing with a
new policy version then the system supported. Lets say the system
supported 25, and the system supported 24, we would report an error
message that said "No such File" With no indication of which file it
tried to install.
So this patch would help his situation. How about something like.
char *policy_path(void) {
char *path=NULL;
int vers = security_policyvers();
if (vers > 0) {
if (asprintf(&path, "%s.%d", selinux_binary_policy_path(),
security_policyvers()) < 0) {
return NULL;
}
} else {
if (asprintf(&path, "%s.*",
selinux_binary_policy_path()) < 0) {
return NULL;
}
}
return path;
}
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk0KGzgACgkQrlYvE4MpobN+yACcDyPZf54gs5ST4x+B6OALWNaN
3aMAn3ASY+rwuu+/e2tRq5Jis9OpjvDp
=/Xu0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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.
