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:   Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@defensec.nl>
To:     Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org>
Cc:     Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>,
        selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: machinectl shell policy
References: <8322849.62pqQp6Oog@liv> <1723812.Y751QtlBzf@liv>
        <ypjl8s9m5nbi.fsf@defensec.nl> <5735537.jZnottUgFY@liv>
        <f142c9ee-ce7e-7f7d-dec4-9d93ddd49c43@ieee.org>
        <ypjlmtxo4uhn.fsf@defensec.nl> <ypjlim8c4u8h.fsf@defensec.nl>
Date:   Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:13:01 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ypjlim8c4u8h.fsf@defensec.nl> (Dominick Grift's message of "Mon,
        04 Jan 2021 16:06:22 +0100")
Message-ID: <ypjla6to4txe.fsf@defensec.nl>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@defensec.nl> writes:

> Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@defensec.nl> writes:
>
>> Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/25/20 4:16 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 25 December 2020 6:58:41 PM AEDT Dominick Grift wrote:
>>>>> Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 24 December 2020 7:37:50 PM AEDT Dominick Grift wrote:
>>>>>>>> To enable "machinectl shell" on recent versions of systemd we need
>>>>>>>> something like the above policy (which is not complete or ideal, still
>>>>>>>> doesn't work so no point polishing it) and something for the below.
>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>> is the below about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this should be thoroughly addressed. machined creates a login pty that
>>>>>>> gets relabeled on login as per type_change rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently it's not being relabeled on Debian, but that's a separate issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the required type_change rules arent present?
>>>> Here is all the policy to make it work.  Maybe we should have a type
>>>> like
>>>> system_dbusd_devpts_t for this.  This is not policy for inclusion, this is
>>>> policy to discuss before writing that policy.
>>>> term_user_pty(user_systemd_t, user_devpts_t)
>>>> term_login_pty(devpts_t)
>>>> allow user_systemd_t user_devpts_t:chr_file rw_file_perms;
>>>> # for machinectl shell
>>>> allow sysadm_t systemd_machined_t:dbus send_msg;
>>>> systemd_manage_userdb_runtime_dirs(systemd_machined_t)
>>>> systemd_manage_userdb_runtime_sock_files(systemd_machined_t)
>>>> term_use_ptmx(systemd_machined_t)
>>>> dev_getattr_fs(systemd_machined_t)
>>>> term_getattr_pty_fs(systemd_machined_t)
>>>> allow systemd_machined_t sysadm_t:dbus send_msg;
>>>> allow systemd_machined_t devpts_t:chr_file rw_file_perms;
>>>> allow system_dbusd_t systemd_machined_t:fd use;
>>>> allow system_dbusd_t devpts_t:chr_file { read write };
>>>> allow system_dbusd_t ptmx_t:chr_file { read write };
>>>> allow sysadm_t systemd_machined_t:fd use;
>>>> allow user_systemd_t shell_exec_t:file entrypoint;
>>>
>>> The pty stuff seems to make sense, but I'm curious why there is a
>>> transition into user_systemd_t for the shell.
>>
>> The policy above is referencing "devpts_t", that is sub-optimal. there
>> shouldnt be any pty chr files with the devpts_t filesystem type
>
> And I agree that then user_systemd_t shell_exec_t entrypoint should be
> there.

err, *should not be there*

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> allow user_systemd_t systemd_machined_t:fd use;
>>>> allow user_systemd_t self:process signal;
>>>> allow user_t systemd_machined_t:fd use;
>>>> allow user_t user_systemd_t:fifo_file { getattr write };
>>>> allow user_t init_t:process signal;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=892001
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have work in progress on dbus-broker in Debian.  Would it make sense to
>>>>>> only support dbus-broker in SE Linux policy?  Being forced to use only 1
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the 2 dbus programs (and the newer and faster 1 of the 2) is a very small
>>>>>> trade-off, smaller than some of the other trade-offs for running SE Linux.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to keep both unless it becomes onerous.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> should probably be able to support both (conditionally) but could get messy
>>>> Currently we have a heap of ifdef systemd in the policy, as probably
>>>> the only
>>>> people not wanting dbus-broker will be the ones not wanting systemd we could
>>>> include it in the same ifdef rules.
>>>
>>> The "else" of the ifdef can work.

-- 
gpg --locate-keys dominick.grift@defensec.nl
Key fingerprint = FCD2 3660 5D6B 9D27 7FC6  E0FF DA7E 521F 10F6 4098
https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xDA7E521F10F64098
Dominick Grift