From: pebenito@gentoo.org (Chris PeBenito)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:00:50 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] revise roles/dbadm.te (Re: dbadm.pp is not
 available in selinux-policy package)
In-Reply-To: <4C69CBC9.4090904@ak.jp.nec.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>	<1271174238.2815.222.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>	<4BC6ABDE.6040005@ak.jp.nec.com>	<4C6900CD.7070600@ak.jp.nec.com>
	<4C6994B4.5050905@tresys.com> <4C69CBC9.4090904@ak.jp.nec.com>
Message-ID: <4C6ACE52.60905@gentoo.org>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 08/16/10 19:37, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> (2010/08/17 4:42), Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>> On 08/16/10 05:11, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>>> Sorry for this long silent on the topic.
>>>
>>> IIRC, we have already agreed most part of the patch, haven't we?
>>>
>>> - The dbadm_t domain shall be launched via sudo, not a login shell,
>>> so, userdom_base_user_template() is used to grant basic privileges
>>> to dbadm_t instead of userdom_unpriv_user_template().
>>> - It allows too much privileges to dbadm_t, if we allows him to launch
>>> setfiles, so we removed seutil_domtrans_setfiles().
>>>
>>> Did we have any more issues?
>>>
>>> The attached patch is same as the last version except for it was rebased
>>> to the latest reference policy.
>>
>> I only have two issues:
>>
>> 1. Why should dbadm be allowed to set enforce mode?
>
> It uses selinux_get_enforce_mode(), not selinux_set_enforce_mode().
> We just allow dbadm_t to see the current working mode.

My mistake, I misread it.  You're right, its fine.

>> 2. Why does dbadm need to manage generic locks?
>
> It was originally copied from webadb.te, but PostgreSQL also makes
> its lockfile on the /var/lock/subsys/postgresql. If server process
> unexpectedly crashed, dbadm_t need to remove it by hand, doesn't it?

Based on what I see in the policy, my guess is this file is created by 
the init script, right?  If not, then it sounds like PostgreSQL needs a 
lock type.

I'd rather it just have delete permissions, rather than full manage 
permissions.  Something like files_delete_all_locks(), but for 
var_lock_t instead.

> Thanks,
>
>> After those are resolved, it can be merged.