From: lvrabec@redhat.com (Lukas Vrabec)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:42:53 +0200
Subject: [refpolicy] map permission in can_exec() but not in
 domain_transition_pattern()
In-Reply-To: <20180719165139.GB26209@julius.enp8s0.d30>
References: <11ce07ad-6001-f686-29be-202c9062730e@redhat.com>
	<20180719164025.GA26209@julius.enp8s0.d30>
	<20180719165139.GB26209@julius.enp8s0.d30>
Message-ID: <04962941-3775-f83e-fdc8-4dc30354d345@redhat.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 07/19/2018 06:51 PM, Dominick Grift via refpolicy wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 06:40:25PM +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 06:17:46PM +0200, Lukas Vrabec via refpolicy wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I found one thing in refpolicy which I don't completely understand.
>>>
>>> In "policy/support/misc_patterns.spt" there is definition of
>>> "domain_transition_pattern" and this contains line:
>>> allow $1 $2:file { getattr open read execute };
>>>
>>> There is missing map permission.
>>>
>>> However in "policy/support/misc_macros.spt" there is definition of
>>> "can_exec" and it contains allow rule:
>>> define(`can_exec',`allow $1 $2:file { mmap_exec_file_perms ioctl lock
>>> execute_no_trans };')
> 
> Sorry can_exec() should just use exec_file_perms which would should be mmap_exec_file_perms + execute_no_trans IMHO
> 
>>
>> This should just use mmap_exec_file_perms
>>

Should we remove lock permission?

>>>
>>> There is a mmap_exec_file_perms which contains:
>>> define(`mmap_exec_file_perms',`{ getattr open map read execute ioctl }')
>>>
>>> Map is present in can_exec().
>>>
>>> So for domain transitions we don't allow map permission from calling
>>> domain on binary type but in can_exec macro there is map permission.
>>>
>>> I think this is a bug and in "domain_transition_pattern" there should be
>>> this line:
>>> allow $1 $2:file { getattr open read execute map };
>>
>> This should just use mmap_exec_file_perms as well
>>
>>>
>>> instead of:
>>> allow $1 $2:file { getattr open read execute };
>>>
>>> Am I right or missing something?
>>>
>>> Thanks for help!
>>> Lukas.
>>
>> permission sets provide a single point of failure and should used as much as possible
>>
>> These were overlooked and because of this we now have a good example what the purpose of permission sets and patterns is.
>>

Thanks, I'll prepare patch.

Lukas.

>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Lukas Vrabec
>>> Software Engineer, Security Technologies
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> refpolicy mailing list
>>> refpolicy at oss.tresys.com
>>> http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Key fingerprint = 5F4D 3CDB D3F8 3652 FBD8  02D5 3B6C 5F1D 2C7B 6B02
>> https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3B6C5F1D2C7B6B02
>> Dominick Grift
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> refpolicy mailing list
> refpolicy at oss.tresys.com
> http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy
> 


-- 
Lukas Vrabec
Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/attachments/20180719/303703b4/attachment-0001.bin