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;
Subject: Re: udevadm etc
To:     Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>,
        selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
References: <3161997.pUvnUksOUX@liv>
From:   Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <c15139e9-6349-4ae4-90c9-c721cbd1c389@ieee.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:00:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3161997.pUvnUksOUX@liv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.

-- 
Chris PeBenito