From: cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:57:18 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] revise roles/dbadm.te (Re: dbadm.pp is not
 available in selinux-policy package)
In-Reply-To: <4BC48A80.3000808@redhat.com>
References: <4BBD28D0.8080204@ak.jp.nec.com>
	<20100408082729.GE25042@localhost.localdomain>
	<4BBDC8E5.1050307@redhat.com>  <4BBEBB52.9090907@ak.jp.nec.com>
	<1271081355.2815.191.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
	<4BC3BAA5.4050502@ak.jp.nec.com>
	<1271164663.2815.214.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
	<4BC48A80.3000808@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1271174238.2815.222.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 11:15 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 04/13/2010 09:17 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 09:28 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> >> (2010/04/12 23:09), Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 14:29 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> >>>> (2010/04/08 21:15), Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >>>>> As Dominick stated.  I prefer to think in terms of two different roles.
> >>>>>    Login Roles, and Roles to execute in when you have privileges (IE Root).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Login Roles/Types
> >>>>> staff_t, user_t, unconfined_t, xguest_t, guest_t
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Three interfaces can be used to create confined login users.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> userdom_restricted_user_template(guest)
> >>>>> userdom_restricted_xwindows_user_template(xguest)
> >>>>> userdom_unpriv_user_template(staff)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Admin Roles/Types
> >>>>> logadm_t, webadm_t, secadm_t, auditadm_t
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following interface can be used to create an Admin ROle
> >>>>> userdom_base_user_template(logadm)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sysadm_t is sort of a hybrid, most people use it as an Admin Role.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I imagine that you login as a confined user and then use sudo/newrole to
> >>>>> switch roles to one of the admin roles.
> >>>>
> >>>> The attached patch revises roles/dbadm.te (to be applied on the upstream
> >>>> reference policy). It uses userdom_base_user_template() instead of the
> >>>> userdom_unpriv_user_template(), and should be launched via sudo/newrole.
> >>>> In the default, it intends the dbadm_r role to be launched by staff_r role.
> >>>
> >>> Why does dbadm need to run setfiles?
> >>
> >> The database files (typically, /var/lib/(se)?pgsql/*) have to be labeled
> >> correctly, so I thought dbadm needs to run setfiles.
> >> However, as long as they initialize database files using init script,
> >> initrc_t domain performs this initial labeling, so it might not be necessary.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, PostgreSQL support a feature to use multiple disks
> >> within a single database instance for performance utilization.
> >> (Called TABLESPACE; I don't know whether MySQL has such a feature.)
> >>
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-08/msg00142.php
> >>
> >> It requires administrators to assign proper security context on the secondary
> >> directory, or to mount the secondary disk with context='...' option.
> >>
> >> Is there any good idea?
> >>
> >> Or, it should not be a task for dbadm?
> > 
> > Ok, the transition for setfiles is fine.
> > 
> 
> I would be carefull with this.  Since setfiles can take a parameter of a
> file context file.  I think it would be better to only give
> relabefrom/relabelto privs for all labels dbadm_t can manage.  Then
> figure out what access is required to mount.

Good point.  We should probably reconsider the setfiles usage from
webadm too.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
(410) 290-1411 x150