spamassassin pre-compiled rules

[Vadym Chepkov]

I figured it out. There is a proper label in the policy

/var/lib/spamassassin/compiled/.*\.so.*            regular file       system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 

It seems when a script that compiles this library runs, it creates shared libraries with spamd_var_lib_t instead. So I guess the only way to fix this issue is to run restorecon -R /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled/ right after sa-compile finishes.

Sincerely yours,
  Vadym Chepkov


--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Dominick Grift <domg472 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Dominick Grift <domg472 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: spamassassin pre-compiled rules
> To: "Vadym Chepkov" <chepkov at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Fedora SELinux" <fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com>
> Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:38 PM
> On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 05:06 -0700,
> Vadym Chepkov wrote:
> > spamassassin rules got updated recently and I got this
> avc
> > 
> > type=AVC msg=audit(1247216252.200:31900): avc: 
> denied  { execute } for  pid=24001 comm="spamd"
> path="/var/lib/spamassassin/compiled/5.010/3.002005/auto/Mail/SpamAssassin/CompiledRegexps/body_0/body_0.so"
> dev=dm-3 ino=124989 scontext=system_u:system_r:spamd_t:s0
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:spamd_var_lib_t:s0 tclass=file
> > 
> > audit2allow suggests this
> > #============= spamd_t ==============
> > allow spamd_t spamd_var_lib_t:file execute;
> > seems reasonable, but why is it missing in standard
> policy?
> > 
> > Sincerely yours,
> >   Vadym Chepkov
> 
> Is that file part of the package? 
> /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled/5.010/3.002005/auto/Mail/SpamAssassin/CompiledRegexps/body_0/body_0.so
> 
> It is probably created by spamd_t.
> 
> The problem is that if you allow spamd_t to execute files
> with type
> spamd_var_lib_t then spamd_t can run everything
> in /var/lib/spamassassin.
> 
> This is not so nice but it might not be a problem either
> 
> Looking at the path it appears that spamd put compiled
> stuff
> under /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled/ 
> 
> assuming that all stuff under there should be executable by
> spamd_t, one
> could consider to introduce a new type for spamd_t
> executable files
> there.
> 
> That would look something like this:
> 
> myspamd.te:
> policy_module(myspamd, 0.0.1)
> type spamd_var_lib_exec_t;
> files_type(spamd_var_lib_exec_t)
> require { type spamd_t; }
> filetrans_pattern(spamd_t, spamd_var_lib_exec_t,
> spamd_var_lib_exec_t,
> { dir file })
> manage_dirs_pattern(spamd_t, spamd_var_lib_exec_t,
> spamd_var_lib_exec_t)
> manage_files_pattern(spamd_t, spamd_var_lib_exec_t,
> spamd_var_lib_exec_t)
> exec_files_pattern(spamd_t, spamd_var_lib_exec_t,
> spamd_var_lib_exec_t)
> 
> myspamd.fc:
> /var/lib/spamassassin/compiled(/.*)?  --
> gen_context(system_u:object_r:spamd_var_lib_exec_t, s0)
> 
> But i guess that depends on your security requirements
> 
> For now this could be considered a bug in selinux-policy
> 
> 
> > fedora-selinux-list mailing list
> > fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
>