Re: [PATCH v2] nbd/server: Add --selinux-label option

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 06:18:55PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 23.07.2021 um 12:33 hat Richard W.M. Jones geschrieben:
> > Under SELinux, Unix domain sockets have two labels.  One is on the
> > disk and can be set with commands such as chcon(1).  There is a
> > different label stored in memory (called the process label).  This can
> > only be set by the process creating the socket.  When using SELinux +
> > SVirt and wanting qemu to be able to connect to a qemu-nbd instance,
> > you must set both labels correctly first.
> > 
> > For qemu-nbd the options to set the second label are awkward.  You can
> > create the socket in a wrapper program and then exec into qemu-nbd.
> > Or you could try something with LD_PRELOAD.
> > 
> > This commit adds the ability to set the label straightforwardly on the
> > command line, via the new --selinux-label flag.  (The name of the flag
> > is the same as the equivalent nbdkit option.)
> > 
> > A worked example showing how to use the new option can be found in
> > this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984938
> > 
> > Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984938
> > Signed-off-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com>
> 
> I suppose this would also be relevant for the built-in NBD server,
> especially in the context of qemu-storage-daemon?

It depends on the usage scenario really. nbdkit / qemu-nbd are
not commonly run under any SELinux policy, so then end up being
unconfined_t. A QEMU NBD client can't connect to an unconfined_t
socket, so we need to override it with this arg.

In the case of qemu system emulator, under libvirt, it will
already have a svirt_t type, so in that case there is no need
to override the type for the socket.

For qsd there's not really any strong practice established
but i expect most current usage is unconfined_t too and
would benefit from setting label.

> If so, is this something specific to NBD sockets, or would it actually
> make sense to have it as a generic option in UnixSocketAddress?

It is applicable to inet sockets too in fact.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|