Re: [Libguestfs] Livecd-creator is disabling selinux

[Moving this to the libguestfs mailing list] On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:05:14PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/13/2014 11:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:20:22AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >>> Secondly we prevent even unconfined_t from putting down labels on >>> the file system that the kernel does not understand. IE If I am >>> building a F21 image on a RHEL6 box, it would blow up in enforcing >>> mode if run as unconfined_t. We added a special policy called >>> livecd_t that is allowed to put down labels which the kernel does not >>> understand, and unconfined_t will transition to this domain. >> >> Slightly off-topic, but this (in-)ability to label files with labels >> which the kernel doesn't know about affects libguestfs negatively too. >> Is there some reason why it's bad? > > Well we could add a label to libguestfs to allow these labels. From the > running kernel point of view you end up with unlabeled_t. I think it's more complex with libguestfs because of the appliance, and because libguestfs normally runs with SELinux disabled inside the appliance. [Note to peanut gallery: libguestfs uses and endorses SELinux and sVirt to implement containment of qemu *in the host*. The above applies only to the appliance.] I know you wrote a good blog posting and we have a (very very old) open bug to fix libguestfs's SELinux support: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554829 After thinking about this for some years and Pino Toscano implementing a new & useful copy-attributes API in libguestfs, I think what we really want is to copy security.selinux xattr from one file to another. This gives us almost all we need, doesn't require us to run loadpolicy, and should work independent of guest policy. Luckily for us ... it works! $ virt-builder fedora-20 $ guestfish -a fedora-20.img -i > <fs> getxattrs /etc/shadow [0] = { attrname: security.selinux attrval: system_u:object_r:shadow_t:s0\x00 } > <fs> cp /etc/shadow /etc/shadow.copy <fs> setxattr security.selinux > system_u:object_r:shadow_t:s0 29 /etc/shadow.copy <fs> getxattrs > /etc/shadow.copy [0] = { attrname: security.selinux attrval: system_u:object_r:shadow_t:s0 } Is this expected? Are we bypassing the kernel/SELinux in some way? Note that the libguestfs appliance kernel doesn't (AFAIK) know about the system_u:object_r:shadow_t:s0 label. > We also would like to prevent users from making mistakes like assigning > httpd_t to a file when it is a process type. > > SELinux is going to check before you put the label down unless you have > the mac_admin capability. Rich.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlLVTIQACgkQrlYvE4MpobNbjQCeMCd2oNg5VT9n3h0QEuQVKlaf T1UAni/ZEXcgteDI7qKRLVJKi5ppFZbB =jQvP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----