From: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
To: Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org>
Cc: selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: udevadm etc
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:02:44 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5107170.hMIqiVgsFT@liv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c15139e9-6349-4ae4-90c9-c721cbd1c389@ieee.org>
On Thursday, 10 December 2020 9:00:38 AM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 12/9/20 7:38 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> > In systemd verision 247.1 (which is in Debian/Unstable now) systemd-udevd
> > is a symlink to udevadm. In systemd version 241 (in Debian/Buster) it's
> > not a symlink. The systemd changelog doesn't mention this change so I
> > don't know exactly when it happened.
> >
> > type_transition init_t udevadm_exec_t:process udevadm_t;
> > type_transition initrc_t udevadm_exec_t:process udevadm_t;
> > type_transition sysadm_t udevadm_exec_t:process udevadm_t;
> > type_transition consolekit_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> > type_transition devicekit_disk_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> > type_transition hald_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> > type_transition hotplug_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> > type_transition init_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> > type_transition initrc_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> > type_transition kernel_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> > type_transition virtd_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> >
> > Above is a list of the relevant type_transition rules from refpolicy taken
> > from git 3 days ago (there don't appear to be any udev changes since
> > then).
> >
> > I think that the only thing to do is to have init_t and initrc_t run
> > udevadm in the udev_t domain.
> >
> > Is it worth having a udevadm_t domain just for running it from sysadm_t or
> > should we have that run as udev_t too?
>
> The udevadm_t domain is much smaller than udev_t, and critically doesn't
> have all the device access udev_t has. Systemd merging the binaries into
> one doesn't necessarily mean the policy has to merge too.
Currently only 3 domains can transition to udevadm_t. 2 of those 3 also
transition to udev_t so they can't use udevadm_t without code changes. The
only remaining domain is sysadm_t.
The question is not "do we have to merge the policy because systemd merges
binaries" but "should we have a separate domain only used for sysadm_t"?
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-10 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-09 12:38 udevadm etc Russell Coker
2020-12-09 22:00 ` Chris PeBenito
2020-12-10 0:02 ` Russell Coker [this message]
2020-12-10 16:29 ` Chris PeBenito
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5107170.hMIqiVgsFT@liv \
--to=russell@coker.com.au \
--cc=pebenito@ieee.org \
--cc=selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.