selinux prelink avc's (broken paths in policy?)

Daniel J Walsh dwalsh at redhat.com
Wed May 24 13:45:26 UTC 2006


dragoran wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:34 +0200, dragoran wrote:
>>  
>>> Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:17 +0200, dragoran wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> dragoran wrote:
>>>>>            
>>>>>> dragoran wrote:
>>>>>>                
>>>>>>> Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:28 +0200, dragoran wrote:
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>> dragoran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>> dragoran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>> audit(1147793154.831:353): avc:  denied  { execute_no_trans 
>>>>>>>>>>> } for  pid=5195 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 
>>>>>>>>>>> ino=8061163 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>>>> audit(1147793154.831:354): avc:  denied  { execute_no_trans 
>>>>>>>>>>> } for  pid=5196 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 
>>>>>>>>>>> ino=8061163 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>>>> audit(1147793155.019:355): avc:  denied  { execute_no_trans 
>>>>>>>>>>> } for  pid=5197 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 
>>>>>>>>>>> ino=8061163 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>>>> audit(1147793155.447:356): avc:  denied  { execute_no_trans 
>>>>>>>>>>> } for  pid=5198 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 
>>>>>>>>>>> ino=8061163 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>>>> audit(1147793156.255:357): avc:  denied  { execute_no_trans 
>>>>>>>>>>> } for  pid=5199 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 
>>>>>>>>>>> ino=8061163 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>>>> I am using FC5 with selinux-policy-targeted-2.2.36-2.fc5
>>>>>>>>>>> whats gonig on? is a file misslabeled or is this a policy bug?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                                             
>>>>>>>>>> hello?
>>>>>>>>>> any solution for this problem?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                       
>>>>>>>>> it happend again...
>>>>>>>>> am I the only  one seeing this?
>>>>>>>>> audit(1148393411.538:2907): avc:  denied  { execute_no_trans } 
>>>>>>>>> for  pid=16856 comm="prelink" name="ld-2.4.so" dev=md0 
>>>>>>>>> ino=8060939 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>> tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>> audit(1148393411.794:2908): avc:  denied  { execmod } for  
>>>>>>>>> pid=16859 comm="ld-linux.so.2" name="libGLcore.so.1.0.8762" 
>>>>>>>>> dev=md0 ino=29797475 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>> tcontext=root:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>> audit(1148393411.814:2909): avc:  denied  { execmod } for  
>>>>>>>>> pid=16860 comm="ld-linux.so.2" 
>>>>>>>>> name="libnvidia-tls.so.1.0.8762" dev=md0 ino=30869146 
>>>>>>>>> scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>> tcontext=root:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>> audit(1148393412.438:2910): avc:  denied  { unlink } for  
>>>>>>>>> pid=13702 comm="prelink" name="prelink.cache" dev=md0 
>>>>>>>>> ino=7012828 scontext=system_u:system_r:prelink_t:s0 
>>>>>>>>> tcontext=user_u:object_r:etc_t:s0 tclass=file
>>>>>>>>> prelink seems to be completly broken and nobody seems to 
>>>>>>>>> notice it?
>>>>>>>>>                                 
>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing this anywhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps it's because /lib/ld-2.4.so is lib_t rather than 
>>>>>>>> ld_so_t on your
>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                           
>>>>>>> ls -Z /lib/ld-2.4.so
>>>>>>> -rwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:ld_so_t        
>>>>>>> /lib/ld-2.4.so
>>>>>>> ls -Z /lib64/ld-2.4.so
>>>>>>> -rwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:lib_t
>>>>>>> seems that you are correct lets hope that this wont happen again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list mailing list
>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>> this *is* a bug
>>>>>> restorecon /lib64/ld-2.4.so
>>>>>> does not change it to ld_so_t (had to do a chcon)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 
>>>>> I did a complete relabel and the result is
>>>>> ls -Z /lib64/ld-2.4.so
>>>>> -rwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:lib_t          
>>>>> /lib64/ld-2.4.so
>>>>>             
>>>> The context line that *should* match this appears to be:
>>>> /lib(64)?(/.*)?/ld-[^/]*\.so(\.[^/]*)*             regular file
>>>> system_u:object_r:ld_so_t:s0
>>>>
>>>> But this appears to be overruled by one of these:
>>>> /lib(/.*)?                                         all files
>>>> system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0
>>>> /lib64(/.*)?                                       all files
>>>> system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what it is that decides which is the best match. The top
>>>> one is longer and appears to me to be more specific, but it does have
>>>> more wildcards in it...
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> I also noticed this:
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:bin_t          bin
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:boot_t         boot
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:device_t       dev
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:etc_t          etc
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:home_root_t    home
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:lib_t          lib
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:lib_t          lib64
>>>>> drwx------  root     root     system_u:object_r:lost_found_t   
>>>>> lost+found
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:mnt_t          media
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:mnt_t          misc
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:mnt_t          mnt
>>>>> dr-xr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:mnt_t          net
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:usr_t          opt
>>>>> dr-xr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:proc_t         proc
>>>>> drwxr-x---  root     root     root:object_r:user_home_dir_t    root
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:sbin_t         sbin
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:security_t     
>>>>> selinux
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:var_t          srv
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:sysfs_t        sys
>>>>> drwxrwxrwt  root     root     system_u:object_r:tmp_t          tmp
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:usr_t          usr
>>>>> drwxr-xr-x  root     root     system_u:object_r:var_t          var
>>>>> looks incorrect too whats going on here?
>>>>>             
>>>> Looks like mine. What do you think is wrong with this? Nothing stands
>>>> out to me.
>>>>
>>>> Paul.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> root:object_r:user_home_dir_t    root should be /home and 
>>> system_u:object_r:home_root_t    home should be /root something 
>>> weird is going on here...
>>>     
>>
>> I disagree. I think these are correct.
>>
>> /root is the home directory for user "root" and should be
>> user_home_dir_t, just like any other user's home directory.
>>
>> /home is the root of the "home" directory tree, where most user home
>> directories live, so home_root_t seems OK for that.
>>
>>   
> thx got it
>> Perhaps it's just the names of the context types that are confusing?
>>   
> yes
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>
>
> -- 
> fedora-selinux-list mailing list
> fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
Yes /lib64/ld-2.4.so has the wrong context.  These new sorting 
algorithms are driving me nuts.  I have fixed it in Rawhide, and
a new test package for fc5 is about to go out.




More information about the fedora-selinux-list mailing list