From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zombie2.ncsc.mil (zombie2.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.133]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1HKeYUO014229 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:40:34 -0500 Received: from manicmethod.com (jazzdrum.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.7]) by zombie2.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n1HKbCc1029183 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:37:12 GMT Message-ID: <499B20AA.8050902@manicmethod.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:40:10 -0500 From: Joshua Brindle MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel J Walsh CC: SE Linux Subject: Re: Patch to libsemanage to remove labeling of /root References: <496C9A96.1080805@redhat.com> <499B1D53.4030602@manicmethod.com> <499B1EB7.40202@redhat.com> <499B1ECE.2040509@manicmethod.com> <499B2091.8000303@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <499B2091.8000303@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Daniel J Walsh wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Joshua Brindle wrote: >> Daniel J Walsh wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Joshua Brindle wrote: >>>> Daniel J Walsh wrote: >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> Policy should label /root with one label and this should not be >>>>> effected >>>>> by the passwd database. >>>>> >>>>> In Fedora policy we label this as admin_home_t. Having this label vary >>>>> depending on policy ends up with lines like >>>>> >>>>> dontaudit * user_home_t:dir search_dir_perms >>>>> dontaudit * admin_home_t:dir search_dir_perms >>>>> dontaudit * sysadmin_home_t:dir search_dir_perms >>>>> dontaudit * staff_home_t:dir search_dir_perms >>>>> >>>>> Labeling this directory as user_home_t, opens the system to possible >>>>> security risks since some domains have to be able to write to >>>>> user_home_t when they would never be allowed to write to admin_home_t. >>>> The comment right above the added lines seems to indicate that was >>>> suppose to be root before, why is / excluded? Are we going to start a >>>> huge whitelist for genhomedircon? >>>> >>>> if (strcmp(pwent->pw_dir, "/") == 0) { >>>> /* don't relabel / genhomdircon checked to see >>>> if root >>>> * was the user and if so, set his home >>>> directory to >>>> * /root */ >>>> continue; >>>> } >>> No just /root >>> >>> /root should not be labeled based on genhomedircon. >>> >> Why are the exact same lines there for "/" then? >> >> > Well I guess we do want to protect / and /root. > > Others should be fixed by looking at the parent, so if I added /var as a > homedir it would blow up saying it conflicts with the previous > definition of /var. > I don't think I understand the problem we are trying to solve here... -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.