Gentoo Archives: gentoo-hardened

From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
To: gentoo-hardened@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] SELinux base policy r2 in hardened-dev overlay
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:19:03
Message-Id: 20110822151816.GA23404@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-hardened] SELinux base policy r2 in hardened-dev overlay by Mike Edenfield
1 On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 07:19:17PM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
2 >> The solution to support<domain>_initrc_exec_t must be a policy-based one
3 >> afaik. I don't think it'll be too difficult to find (the places within
4 >> refpolicy that are offering interfaces just for Gentoo's integrated
5 >> run_init
6 >> are documented), it'll just take some time to get it in proper shape.
7 >
8 > Is there a specific reason that the domain-specific initrc support cannot
9 > be made part of run_init? Instead of reading a single default context from
10 > initrc_context, you could instead label, for ex. the init script itself,
11 > and have run_init use that instead?
12
13 The run_init application is merely a tool to support transitions across
14 roles as well. Its behavior can well be defined by the SELinux policy
15 itself.
16
17 What you are suggesting (label init script) is exactly what I was talking
18 about: instead of having the init scripts labeled initrc_exec_t, they should
19 be labeled like slapd_initrc_exec_t, postfix_initrc_exec_t, ... and Gentoo's
20 integrated run_init support, which by the policy is currently only working
21 on initrc_exec_t, should support those too.
22
23 Since the policy defines an attribute called init_script_file_type, I hope
24 to update the Gentoo-specific privileges towards this attribute rather than
25 to initrc_exec_t so that the current behavior (sysadm_r can call init
26 scripts directly) is retained.
27
28 Then the second approach is to update - I think - the init_script_file
29 interface to support the Gentoo integrated run_init as well. But that's
30 something to test and find out.
31
32 Wkr,
33 Sven Vermeulen

Replies