Bug 1393004
Summary: | selinux_validate_context() refpol is required for restorecon() calls | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Brian Bouterse <bmbouter> |
Component: | selinux-policy | Assignee: | Lukas Vrabec <lvrabec> |
Status: | CLOSED CANTFIX | QA Contact: | BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 7.4 | CC: | dwalsh, lvrabec, mgrepl, mmalik, mpavlase, plautrba, pvrabec, ssekidde |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-08-22 10:06:43 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1393066 |
Description
Brian Bouterse
2016-11-08 16:40:15 UTC
Hi Lukas. Policy is a development technology that can be used to run python applications, so the permissions needed vary application by application depending on the Python code inside. So there isn't a python-celery policy, but for our app, Pulp ( http://pulpproject.org/ ) we have three SELinux policies we maintain and distribute via rpm directly from upstream. The line of interest is currently committed into our pulp-celery policy here: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/server/selinux/server/pulp-celery.te#L149 Please let me know if there is any way I can help. Thanks Brian, If these policy is shipped by upstream, these rules also should be fixed there. Closing this BZ as CANTFIX. Thanks Lukas. At most, this is a very low severity bug, so feel free to respond with a very brief response. My thinking was that refpol or python-selinux may have a bug in it, not the upstream policy. Everything works already in the upstream policy so there isn't a "fix" to apply there at all. The claim of this bug is that I am required to include a "selinux_validate_context(celery_t)" statement when I run a python-selinux code of "selinux.restorecon('/path/to/dir', recursive=True)". I don't see why that selinux_validate_context() call is required. I may have an incorrect expectation. So the two questions I still have are: Is it expected that a "selinux_validate_context(celery_t)" statement be included in my policy when running "selinux.restorecon()"? If it isn't then it's a bug in refpol or maybe python-selinux. How can I learn more to better understand why this specific statement is required? I've read the refpol description, but maybe I should read the python-selinux implementation instead? |