From: guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:53:00 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 13/34]: patch to allow networkmanager dbus
 chat
In-Reply-To: <4D7533E5.9050806@tresys.com>
References: <1297836836.3205.56.camel@tesla.lan>
	<4D651B7A.4010100@tresys.com> <1298487030.29671.20.camel@tesla.lan>
	<4D74E408.2050501@tresys.com> <1299517796.2978.41.camel@tesla.lan>
	<4D7533E5.9050806@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <1299793980.4680.5.camel@tesla.lan>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Mon, 07/03/2011 at 14.37 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 03/07/11 12:09, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> > On Mon, 07/03/2011 at 08.56 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >> On 02/23/11 13:50, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> >>> Hello Christopher !
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 23/02/2011 at 09.36 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >>>> On 02/16/11 01:13, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> >>>>> This patch allows dbus chat between networkmanager and dbus and
> >>>>> between networkmanager and xdm. It also adds a missing permission
> >>>>> (sysnet_read_dhcpc_state) to the networkmanager module.
> [cut]
> >>>>> diff -pruN refpolicy-git-15022011-new-before-modification/policy/modules/services/xserver.te refpolicy-git-15022011-new-modified/policy/modules/services/xserver.te
> >>>>> --- refpolicy-git-15022011-new-before-modification/policy/modules/services/xserver.te	2011-02-15 23:07:24.845137330 +0100
> >>>>> +++ refpolicy-git-15022011-new-modified/policy/modules/services/xserver.te	2011-02-15 23:17:05.369699539 +0100
> >>>>> @@ -548,6 +548,10 @@ optional_policy(`
> >>>>>  ')
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  optional_policy(`
> >>>>> +	networkmanager_dbus_chat(xdm_t)
> >>>>> +')
> >>> More or less I have reported back what was being requested (in the form
> >>> of a patch).
> >> It makes me wonder if everything is running in the right domain.
> > That could be. But I have not been provided with a reference. So, can
> > you provide a reference ps auxZ which then I will compare as soon as I
> > can access the test system again ?
> 
> It would be simpler if you could provide the ps output.  The only process that should be running in xdm_t should be xdm/gdm/kdm. If your nm-applet is running in xdm_t, it is wrong.  It should be running in the user's domain.

Yes, I can now confirm. Everything past the X login runs in xdm_t
because pam_selinux open is disabled for gdm. Enabling pam_selinux open
for gdm leads to graphical login failures. I am trying to sort this out
now. Is it a known issue ?

Do you believe such a case (gdm not using pam_selinux) should be dropped
and not considered as a possible scenario ?

> > Also, what do you think about the idea of providing a make target (say
> > "make check") in refpolicy which runs some minimal checks on that for at
> > least the core processes ?
> 
> I can't think of how that would work off the top of my head.  If you have ideas, I'd be happy to listen.  I'd prefer to not write a script that has all of the checking hard coded in it.

Regards,

Guido