linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>
To: Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net>
Cc: linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	SELinux <SELinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	"Fedora SELinux support list for users & developers."
	<fedora-selinux-list@redhat.com>,
	harald@redhat.com, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [idea] udev + selinux
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:18:10 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040831191809.GC4375@lkcl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040831164635.GK10151@lbsd.net>

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:46:35PM +0200, Nigel Kukard wrote:

> >  assuming yes, then it kinda-solves the need for doing that hacked-up
> >  relaxed-constraints-patch-to-hooks.c fscontext= option.
> > 
> 
> aha, u correct!!!!
> 
> >  why? because you can mount -t tmpfs /dev blah blah and you don't 
> >  care what the context is because udev will set the correct one
> >  when it runs.
> > 
> > 
> 
> perfect!!!!, so that solves the need for the hooks patch, which is in
> actual fact wrong.
 
 oh, is it?  uhm, why?

> >  that is - of course - assuming that file_contexts/file_contexts
> >  _contains_ the correct file context for /dev.
> > 
> > 
> 
> *nod*
> 
> >  it might make (i dunno) for a simpler policy.
> > 
> 
> yep
 
  i _say_ might ... but then you mention that you've done exactly
  the same policy mods that i had to...

> >  what i mean is, have you had to add in the modifications to the
> >  selinux policy that i sent to the lists last week?
> > 
> >  e.g. these:
> > 
> > 	 allow udev_tbl_t device_t:filesystem { associate };
> > 	 allow initctl_t device_t:filesystem { associate };
> > 
> >  and these:
> > 
> > 	 +# needed for udev-mounted (/dev) tmpfs
> > 	 +allow $1_tty_device_t device_t:filesystem { associate };
> > 	 +
> > 	 +# to allow users to run df on udev-mounted (/dev) tmpfs
> > 	 +allow $1_t device_t:filesystem { getattr };
> > 	 +   #EXE=/bin/df  NAME=/   :  getattr
> > 	 +
> > 
> 
> had to add quite a couple more, but i'm still working on that to make it
> "correct"
 
 i think we need the input of more experienced people than us to
 say why these associate things are needed.

> >  these are all there for reasons i cannot entirely fathom but
> >  it starts, in types/file.te, with this:
> > 
> >  	allow { device_type } device_t:filesystem associate;
> > 
> 
> i need this aswell.... which is very interesting, so my "way of doing
> it" doesn't solve this problem. i'll keep looking for the solution
> 
> >  which is all because of this:
> >  
> >  	mount tmpfs -o fscontext=system_u:object_r:device_t /dev
> > 
> 
> this doesn't cause the problem, its something else
> 
> >  
> >  anyway what i am saying is that if you HAVE NOT got all these patches
> >  in your selinux policy files, then your approach has distinct
> >  advantages: less mods to the policy files and less differences between
> >  a persistent and non-persistent udev filesystem.
> > 
> 
> correct, i'm still working on it though and it HAS TO BE COMPLETED
> SOON!!!!

 ah, the joys of the "ItWorksForMe(tm)" approach...

> > 
> >  other than that, my intuition is saying "i don't like it" and what that
> >  means is that in about two or three weeks i will be able to articulate
> >  clearly and precisely why i don't think it's a good idea.
> >
> 
> *shrug*, just a different outlook, patching userspace instead of kernel
> space
>

> >  it'll likely be something to do with your solution being a two-step
> >  operation whereas the hacked-up-relaxed-fscontext-hooks.c things is
> >  a one-step (atomic?)  operation.
> > 
> 
> kernel developers will very much not like to get patches unless for a
> very good reason... 

 a correct implementation of the
 hacked-together-relaxed-fscontext-hooks.c-patch results in an atomic
 operation (mount with a new context which would otherwise need to be
 achieved with two commands: mount followed by restorecon)
 
 in my books, that's a good reason!

> *shrug*... guess i have the totally oposite outlook
> than you, i've had quite a number of my patches go mainstream though
 
 dude, the entire selinux thing is disliked by stacks of debian
 maintainers because of the knock-on implications it has.

 imagine what chaos would ensue if up until now, linux only had
 a FAT filesystem and someone said "hey, there's this _great_ concept
 it's called file ownership and file permissions, i've invented
 something called an ext2 filesystem".

 l.

-- 
--
Truth, honesty and respect are rare commodities that all spring from
the same well: Love.  If you love yourself and everyone and everything
around you, funnily and coincidentally enough, life gets a lot better.
--
<a href="http://lkcl.net">      lkcl.net      </a> <br />
<a href="mailto:lkcl@lkcl.net"> lkcl@lkcl.net </a> <br />



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idP47&alloc_id\x10808&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2004-08-31 19:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-08-30 17:37 [idea] udev + selinux Nigel Kukard
2004-08-30 20:31 ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-31  5:02   ` Nigel Kukard
2004-08-31  9:49     ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-31 10:27       ` Nigel Kukard
2004-08-31 12:46         ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-31 11:26       ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-31 16:07 ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-31 16:46   ` Nigel Kukard
2004-08-31 19:18     ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [this message]
2004-08-31 19:26       ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-31 20:02         ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-31 21:18           ` Jim McCullough
2004-08-31 23:26             ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-31 22:44       ` [OT] SELinux vs. other systems [was Re: [idea] udev + selinux] Linas Vepstas
2004-09-01 14:23         ` Richard Troth
2004-09-01 17:25         ` Linas Vepstas
2004-09-02 16:10           ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-02 17:29             ` Lomac questions [was Re: [OT] SELinux vs. other systems] Linas Vepstas
2004-09-02 20:05               ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

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=20040831191809.GC4375@lkcl.net \
    --to=lkcl@lkcl.net \
    --cc=SELinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=fedora-selinux-list@redhat.com \
    --cc=harald@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=nkukard@lbsd.net \
    --cc=notting@redhat.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).