Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
To:     selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
Subject: udevadm etc
Date:   Wed, 09 Dec 2020 23:38:17 +1100
Message-ID: <3161997.pUvnUksOUX@liv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

# ls -l /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 12 Dec  3 22:53 /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd -> /
bin/udevadm

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?

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/