Bug 212217
| Summary: | procmail triggers selinux warnings | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Pawel Salek <pawsa> |
| Component: | selinux-policy | Assignee: | Daniel Walsh <dwalsh> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Ben Levenson <benl> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 6 | CC: | dwalsh |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-11-17 18:55:04 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
If you want to add this priv, you can with setenforce 0 run procmail in permissive mode audit2allow -R -m local -i /var/log/audit/audit.log semodule -i local.pp setenforce 1 I take exception to the comment above: 1. the fact that procmail is not allowed to write to /tmp is not documented. 2. /usr/sbin/semodule -i local.pp /usr/sbin/semodule: Could not read file 'local.pp': Perhaps because audit2allow wrote the rules on the screen. Sorry should have been audit2allow -R -M local -i /var/log/audit/audit.log You may take exception to the fact, but having allowing a system daemon to write to /tmp is not a great idea. Since it can theoretically attack userspace from there. With FC5/FC6 and RHEL5 you have the ability to customise SELinux policy to enforce policy any way you want. But we can not write policy to allow applications to run in all possible configurations, because they will quickly desolve to providing no protection. Ad 1. I understand your concern about system daemons writing to /tmp - but this is *not* documented. Many recipes for using procmail (see for example http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/pm-tips.html) create temporary files in /tmp directory and they will be silently broken by such procmail rules. Think of all the users that test their recipes by manual delivery (and everything works) and silently breaking when procmail is executed by sendmail. And the difference dissapearing when SElinux is disabled. It seems this (ie. disabling SELinux) is what this setting is trying to achieve. Ad 2. audit2allow still does not work as specified: There is no /var/log/audit/audit.log being created in default FC6 configuration, or any file with similar name. Running "audit2allow -R -M local -d" generates worrisome output: Generating type enforcment file: local.te Compiling policy checkmodule -M -m -o local.mod local.te /usr/bin/audit2allow: (unknown source)::ERROR 'syntax error' at token 'policy_module' on line 1: checkmodule: error(s) encountered while parsing configuration checkmodule: loading policy configuration from local.te but it seems the local.te file is applied to the configuration. Will this be preserved after reboot? I guess I can find it out on my own. Yes it will survive a reboot or a upgrade. You might want to install setroubleshoot Which will inform you when you have an selinux problem, and try to translate it to something an admin can do to remedy the denial yum -y install setroubleshoot I have not seen that error with audit2allow audit2allow -M -local -i /var/log/messages should work? Yes, using /var/log/messages works just fine (apart from generating the same confusing but apparently harmless error message), thanks! |
Description of problem: audit(1161761941.960:8): avc: denied { search } for pid=4041 comm="procmail" name="tmp" dev=dm-0 ino=1865953 scontext=system_u:system_r:procmail_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0 tclass=dir Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): selinux-policy-2.3.18-10 selinux-policy-targeted-2.3.18-10 How reproducible: It is probably adding LOGFILE=/tmp/pm.log to your .procmailrc that triggers that. Isn't the procmail policy too restrictive?