Bug 747993

Summary: Re-confining of Firefox plugins
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Matěj Cepl <mcepl>
Component: selinux-policyAssignee: Miroslav Grepl <mgrepl>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Milos Malik <mmalik>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 6.2CC: djuran, dwalsh, mmalik, syeghiay
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: selinux-policy-3.7.19-154.el6 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 784309 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-20 12:28:05 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 750385, 784309, 826592, 832998    

Description Matěj Cepl 2011-10-21 16:18:29 UTC
Adobe started supporting 64bit flash couple of days (weeks) ago. Which means nspluginwrapper is not required for flash anymore anywhere. And given that since somewhere in 3.6.* line, firefox now supports out of the process plugins, it should be possible to confine flash process as such.

However, when I run it (in RHEL 6.2 true) I get in pstree -Z this

├─firefox(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')
 │ ├─plugin-containe(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')
 │  │ ├─{plugin-contain}(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')
 │  │ ├─{plugin-contain}(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')
 │  │ ├─{plugin-contain}(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')
 │  │ └─{plugin-contain}(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')
 │  ├─{firefox}(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')
 │  └─{firefox}(`unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023')


i.e., flash plugin (process plugin-container) runs unconfined again.

According to the discussion on IRC, there is apparently some support for this in Fedora. Could we backport this to RHEL 6 eventually?

Comment 2 Daniel Walsh 2011-10-21 17:27:06 UTC
This needs to wait for 6.3

Comment 6 Miroslav Grepl 2012-01-26 07:53:03 UTC
Fixed in selinux-policy-3.7.19-136.el6

Comment 9 Suzanne Logcher 2012-05-17 17:56:18 UTC
Since FailedQA, should this be a 6.3 blocker?

Comment 15 errata-xmlrpc 2012-06-20 12:28:05 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0780.html