From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31FFC4361B for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF7622D06 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726627AbgLJADe (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:03:34 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40428 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725914AbgLJADe (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:03:34 -0500 Received: from smtp.sws.net.au (smtp.sws.net.au [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:71f5::dada:cafe]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F6B2C0613CF for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:02:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv.coker.com.au (unknown [103.75.204.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: russell@coker.com.au) by smtp.sws.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F01C2FE3A; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:02:48 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=coker.com.au; s=2008; t=1607558570; bh=uQvsC97wc4gtsaa9SVR/djh3Uz7flSdj6CUaDLwHoRU=; l=2112; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RGWmk/mlRqx0XVruT/e+2G6ZFJmjpkMM4cxZzMrOojhwsfOaCzFRHwVPI53ogit9g ysKX44hJrDmkkpZgMykJ1LiMWjCbMGq3Dm0xBjkQOTYaMPVKJiPsaC2kji7SmrVL68 VYAvEM2GpQGbJ4QrAX86Ngn72ANQwIPFT4GI+i8o= From: Russell Coker To: Chris PeBenito Cc: selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: udevadm etc Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:02:44 +1100 Message-ID: <5107170.hMIqiVgsFT@liv> In-Reply-To: References: <3161997.pUvnUksOUX@liv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.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/