Re: [libvirt PATCH 01/13] security: add SELinux policy for virt

On 10. 08. 21 18:35, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:39:23AM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 06:47:58PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > From: Nikola Knazekova <nknazeko(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > SELinux policy was created for: > > > > > > Hypervisor drivers: > > > - virtqemud (QEMU/KVM) > > > - virtlxcd (LXC) > > > - virtvboxd (VirtualBox) > > > > > > Secondary drivers: > > > - virtstoraged (host storage mgmt) > > > - virtnetworkd (virtual network mgmt) > > > - virtinterface (network interface mgmt) > > > - virtnodedevd (physical device mgmt) > > > - virtsecretd (security credential mgmt) > > > - virtnwfilterd (ip[6]tables/ebtables mgmt) > > > - virtproxyd (proxy daemon) > > > > > > SELinux policy for virtvxz and virtxend has not been created yet, > > > because I wasn't able to reproduce AVC messages. These drivers > > > run in unconfined_domain until the AVC messages are reproduced > > > internally and policy for these drivers is made. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nikola Knazekova <nknazeko(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > --- > > > src/security/selinux/virt.fc | 111 ++ > > > src/security/selinux/virt.if | 1984 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > src/security/selinux/virt.te | 2078 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 4173 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 src/security/selinux/virt.fc > > > create mode 100644 src/security/selinux/virt.if > > > create mode 100644 src/security/selinux/virt.te > > > > > > diff --git a/src/security/selinux/virt.fc b/src/security/selinux/virt.fc > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000000..554e1094d9 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/src/security/selinux/virt.fc > > > @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ > > > +HOME_DIR/\.libvirt(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/\.libvirt/qemu(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:svirt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/\.cache/libvirt(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/\.cache/libvirt/qemu(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:svirt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/\.config/libvirt(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/\.config/libvirt/qemu(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:svirt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/VirtualMachines(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/VirtualMachines/isos(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_content_t,s0) > > These two doesn't look like libvirt selinux bits, more like virt-manager > > or some other tool. > Rationale is largely lost in the mists of time to be honest. $HOME/VirtualMachines > does make sense for desktop virt use case I think, while the below rules make > sense as a direct translation of libvirt's system paths. > > I think its ok to have both really > > > > +HOME_DIR/\.local/share/libvirt/images(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:svirt_home_t,s0) > > > +HOME_DIR/\.local/share/libvirt/boot(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:svirt_home_t,s0) > > > +/var/lib/libvirt(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_var_lib_t,s0) > > > +/var/lib/libvirt/boot(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_content_t,s0) > > > +/var/lib/libvirt/images(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_image_t,s0) > > > +/var/lib/libvirt/isos(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_content_t,s0) > > > +/var/lib/libvirt/lockd(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_var_lockd_t,s0) > > > +/var/lib/libvirt/qemu(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:qemu_var_run_t,s0-mls_systemhigh) > > > + > > > +/var/log/log(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_log_t,s0) > > Based on commit from selinux-policy 63ead48cf8 this seems vdsm related. > > I don't think that we use this directory in libvirt. > Yeah, that's dubious. Good point, we'll move it out of virt policy. > > > > +/var/log/libvirt(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_log_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/libvirtd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_var_run_t,s0) > > > +# Avoid calling m4's "interface" by using en empty string > > > +/var/run/libvirt/interfac(e)(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtinterfaced_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/libvirt/nodedev(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtnodedevd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/libvirt/nwfilter(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtnwfilterd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/libvirt/secrets(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtsecretd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/libvirt/storage(/.*)? gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtstoraged_var_run_t,s0) > > > + > > > +/var/run/virtlogd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtlogd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtlxcd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virt_lxc_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtqemud\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtqemud_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtvboxd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtvboxd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtproxyd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtproxyd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtinterfaced\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtinterfaced_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtnetworkd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtnetworkd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtnodedevd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtnodedevd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtnwfilterd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtnwfilterd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtnwfilterd-binding\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtnwfilterd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtsecretd\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtsecretd_var_run_t,s0) > > > +/var/run/virtstoraged\.pid -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:virtstoraged_var_run_t,s0) > > [...] > > > > I was not able to figure out on which selinux policy is this one based > > on as the upstream for rawhide from <https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy.git> > > is a bit different. There are some cosmetics changes but I see two major > > differences: > > > > - the upstream policy doesn't have split-daemon bits compared to > > this one, I checked it and it looks reasonable but I'm not that > > familiar with selinux policy > Now I compare the two, I see there's a bunch of stuff in the current > fedora virt.te that doesn't exist in this virt.te. This policy has been mostly rewritten by Nikola Knazekova to work with the split daemon configuration. It's only been tested using libvirt-tck and by running some VM by hand so we could use your help running other tests you have available. There has actually been some progress on the policy since I last updated the PR. The latest version is available here: https://github.com/5umm3r15/selinux-policy/blob/libvirt-selinux/policy/mo... https://github.com/5umm3r15/selinux-policy/blob/libvirt-selinux/policy/mo... https://github.com/5umm3r15/selinux-policy/blob/libvirt-selinux/policy/mo... The MLS parts of the policy are still not 100% since we are not sure about some access that is taking place during testing with libvirt-tck. Please see: https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-tck/-/merge_requests/8#note_601463944

> > So if we deploy this, then its likely to break stuff that's in the > current virt.te that we've omitted. > > I should have checked this more closely before re-sendig, as I just > blindly assumed that the differences to fedora-selinux had been > eliminated after my original review comments :-( > > > - the upstream policy has important `system.token` issue fix that > > we've seen recently introduced by upstream commit <1f761d0bbd> > > My view for pulling any SElinux policy into libvirt.git is that we need > to untangle the current fedora selinux virt policy first to remove all > the non-libvirt pieces. It should then be a direct copy into libvirt.git > with no modifications. > > So I don't think this is mergable as it exists now. The policy has been split to virt and virt_supplementary (https://github.com/5umm3r15/selinux-policy/blob/libvirt-selinux/policy/mo...), where virt_supplementary has the bits that are non-libvirt (this part will stay in selinux-policy repo).