Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:28:42 +0100
From:   Dominick Grift <dac.override@gmail.com>
To:     Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss@m4x.org>
Cc:     refpolicy <selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Intent to add support for cryfs
Message-ID: <20191112102842.GA2572684@brutus.lan>
Mail-Followup-To: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss@m4x.org>,
        refpolicy <selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org>
References: <CAJfZ7=kwLVohyjoeTBx7Kmf=31qnubR1gTrJUbcZF+EB1Gbciw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJfZ7=kwLVohyjoeTBx7Kmf=31qnubR1gTrJUbcZF+EB1Gbciw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Every email client sucks, this one just sucks less.
Sender: selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 07:32:43PM +0100, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
> Hello,
> I am using CryFS (https://www.cryfs.org/) in order to encrypt some
> files in a shared directory. Before writing a policy for this software
> and upstreaming it to refpolicy, I am wondering how this should be
> handled.

Sounds somewhat like gocryptfs.
This is how i implemented policy for that:
https://defensec.nl/gitweb/dssp2.git/blob/HEAD:/policy/applications/g/gocry=
ptfs.cil


>=20
> CryFS is a software that can be run by non-root users that have access
> to /dev/fuse. Its command is directly used to mount a directory
> ("/usr/bin/cryfs basedir mountpoint"), like command "mount".
> Unmounting a mountpoint is done with "fusermount -u mountpoint",
> /usr/bin/fusermount being a setuid-root program labeled mount_exec_t.
> Currently, sysadm_t cannot use CryFS because it is not allowed to open
> and use /dev/fuse (ie. fuse_device_t). Moreover labeling CryFS as
> mount_exec_t makes mount_t require more accesses (reading a
> configuration file from the base directory, reading
> /proc/sys/crypto/fips_enabled, using pipes, etc.).
>=20
> Therefore I am thinking of creating a new policy module for cryfs,
> which could be shared with other similar software like EncFS
> (https://vgough.github.io/encfs/). Does this sound like something
> acceptable? Did I miss an existing module that can be extended in
> order to support CryFS?
>=20
> Thanks,
> Nicolas
>=20

--=20
Key fingerprint =3D 5F4D 3CDB D3F8 3652 FBD8 02D5 3B6C 5F1D 2C7B 6B02
https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0x3B6C5F1D2C7B6B02
Dominick Grift

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=5Bh4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--