Try running it in enforcing and document the application failures you get
together with their denials. And see if allowing it fixes that particular
problem. If you just give a list with rules and say "this is needed" there
is a realistic chance that I can't get it upstreamed.
On Oct 25, 2012 12:24 AM, "Stan Sander" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 10/24/2012 08:46 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:50:22PM -0600, Stan Sander wrote:
> >> This is the invalid context that I think I need to address:
> >>
> >> Oct 23 11:47:21 iax kernel: type=1401 audit(1351014441.497:8823983):
> >> security_compute_sid:  invalid context stan:system_r:initrc_t for
> >> scontext=stan:sysadm_r:sysadm_t
> >> tcontext=system_u:object_r:asterisk_initrc_exec_t tclass=process
> >>
> > Meh,
> >
> > Seems my reply didn't hit the list first.
> >
> > You probably forgot to add in the system_r role to the SELinux user, see
> >
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/selinux/selinux-handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1#serviceadmin
> >
> > Wkr,
> >       Sven Vermeulen
>
> Thanks,  asterisk now starts with SELinux enforcing.  However, it did
> produce some new denials, two of which I believe impact the correct
> running of the daemon and associated scripts, etc.  Here are all the
> denials generated at startup:
>
> Oct 24 15:48:45 iax kernel: type=1400 audit(1351115325.194:8824301):
> avc:  denied  { entrypoint } for  pid=14590 comm="runscript.sh"
> path="/bin/rm" dev="sda3" ino=6837732 scontext=stan:system_r:initrc_t
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:bin_t tclass=file
> Oct 24 15:48:45 iax kernel: type=1400 audit(1351115325.203:8824302):
> avc:  denied  { read write } for  pid=14592 comm="asterisk"
> path="/dev/pts/2" dev="devpts" ino=5 scontext=stan:system_r:asterisk_t
> tcontext=stan:object_r:user_devpts_t tclass=chr_file
> Oct 24 15:48:45 iax kernel: type=1400 audit(1351115325.203:8824303):
> avc:  denied  { read write } for  pid=14592 comm="asterisk"
> path="/dev/pts/2" dev="devpts" ino=5 scontext=stan:system_r:asterisk_t
> tcontext=stan:object_r:user_devpts_t tclass=chr_file
> Oct 24 15:48:46 iax kernel: type=1400 audit(1351115326.462:8824304):
> avc:  denied  { write } for  pid=14669 comm="runscript.sh"
> name="wrapper_loop.pid" dev="sda3" ino=6422541
> scontext=stan:system_r:initrc_t
> tcontext=stan:object_r:asterisk_var_run_t tclass=file
> Oct 24 15:48:46 iax kernel: type=1400 audit(1351115326.464:8824305):
> avc:  denied  { read write } for  pid=14670 comm="asterisk"
> path="/dev/pts/2" dev="devpts" ino=5 scontext=stan:system_r:asterisk_t
> tcontext=stan:object_r:user_devpts_t tclass=chr_file
> Oct 24 15:48:46 iax kernel: type=1400 audit(1351115326.464:8824306):
> avc:  denied  { read write } for  pid=14670 comm="asterisk"
> path="/dev/pts/2" dev="devpts" ino=5 scontext=stan:system_r:asterisk_t
> tcontext=stan:object_r:user_devpts_t tclass=chr_file
> Oct 24 15:48:46 iax kernel: type=1400 audit(1351115326.469:8824307):
> avc:  denied  { setattr } for  pid=14670 comm="asterisk" name="asterisk"
> dev="sda3" ino=6446976 scontext=stan:system_r:asterisk_t
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:asterisk_var_run_t tclass=dir
>
>
>
> The write denial for the wrapper_loop.pid file will lead to trouble, and
> the denial for setattr on the /var/run/asterisk directory has the
> potential (IMHO) to get us off in the weeds.  The others, AFAICT are
> candidates for dontaudit rules.  Based on the above, it seems initrc_t
> needs to be allowed to write asterisk_var_run_t files.  Since
> runscript.sh is trying to write the pid, I really don't see any
> alternatives.  I believe it needs this info to properly signal the
> wrapper for a graceful daemon stoppage.  The last denial (for setattr)
> is trying to ensure 770 permissions on /var/run/asterisk and likely user
> and group ownership also.
>
> I can throw a couple rules at this in a local policy module, and let
> this run for a few days to see if anything else pops out, then file what
> I find in a bug against the policy module.
>
> --
> Stan & HD Tashi Grad 10/08  Edgewood, NM  SWR
> PR - Cindy and Jenny - Sammamish, WA  NWR
> http://www.cci.org
>
>
>

Reply via email to