Bug 1802062
| Summary: | Add a SELinux boolean to allow SSSD to access kernel keyrings labeled system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Sumit Bose <sbose> |
| Component: | selinux-policy | Assignee: | Zdenek Pytela <zpytela> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Milos Malik <mmalik> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 8.4 | CC: | ccallaha, jshivers, lslebodn, lvrabec, mmalik, o.freyermuth, orion, plautrba, ssekidde, wienemann |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Release: | 8.3 | Flags: | pm-rhel:
mirror+
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-11-04 01:56:01 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: | |||
|
Description
Sumit Bose
2020-02-12 09:49:47 UTC
(In reply to Sumit Bose from comment #0) > Description of problem: > > If the kernel keyring is used to store the Kerberos credential cache (ccache > type KEYRING) and some kernel modules like cifs or nfs have created the > keyring for the user before, it is labeled with > system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 which makes sense because a kernel module > created it.system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 > There are more issues with KEYRING ccache. SELinux labeling does not work well with containers. That's the reason why KCM is default on rhel8. What is the reason for using KEYRING ccache with cifs or nfs (In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #1) > (In reply to Sumit Bose from comment #0) > > Description of problem: > > > > If the kernel keyring is used to store the Kerberos credential cache (ccache > > type KEYRING) and some kernel modules like cifs or nfs have created the > > keyring for the user before, it is labeled with > > system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 which makes sense because a kernel module > > created it.system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 > > > > There are more issues with KEYRING ccache. SELinux labeling does not work > well with > containers. That's the reason why KCM is default on rhel8. > > What is the reason for using KEYRING ccache with cifs or nfs This came from an issue on RHEL7 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301686). I guess we will ask for a backport when this is fixed on RHEL8. (In reply to Sumit Bose from comment #2) > (In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #1) > > (In reply to Sumit Bose from comment #0) > > > Description of problem: > > > > > > If the kernel keyring is used to store the Kerberos credential cache (ccache > > > type KEYRING) and some kernel modules like cifs or nfs have created the > > > keyring for the user before, it is labeled with > > > system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 which makes sense because a kernel module > > > created it.system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 > > > > > > > There are more issues with KEYRING ccache. SELinux labeling does not work > > well with > > containers. That's the reason why KCM is default on rhel8. > > > > What is the reason for using KEYRING ccache with cifs or nfs > > This came from an issue on RHEL7 > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301686). I guess we will ask > for a backport when this is fixed on RHEL8. I am sorry you did not answer my question. (SELinux guys needn't be aware of changes in defautls for various components) Let me be more specific. What is the reason for using KEYRING ccache with cifs or nfs rhel8? (In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #3) > (In reply to Sumit Bose from comment #2) > > (In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #1) > > > (In reply to Sumit Bose from comment #0) > > > > Description of problem: > > > > > > > > If the kernel keyring is used to store the Kerberos credential cache (ccache > > > > type KEYRING) and some kernel modules like cifs or nfs have created the > > > > keyring for the user before, it is labeled with > > > > system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 which makes sense because a kernel module > > > > created it.system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 > > > > > > > > > > There are more issues with KEYRING ccache. SELinux labeling does not work > > > well with > > > containers. That's the reason why KCM is default on rhel8. > > > > > > What is the reason for using KEYRING ccache with cifs or nfs > > > > This came from an issue on RHEL7 > > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301686). I guess we will ask > > for a backport when this is fixed on RHEL8. > > I am sorry you did not answer my question. > (SELinux guys needn't be aware of changes in defautls for various components) > Let me be more specific. > > What is the reason for using KEYRING ccache with cifs or nfs rhel8? Hi, I recently came across a case where a customer preferred to stay with KEYRING and as default and not installing the 'sssd-kcm' packages for performance reason. The performance issue was neither caused by nfs nor cifs but a 3rd party application, nevertheless the customer stayed with KEYRING. HTH bye, Sumit (In reply to Sumit Bose from comment #6) > (In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #3) > > I am sorry you did not answer my question. > > (SELinux guys needn't be aware of changes in defautls for various components) > > Let me be more specific. > > > > What is the reason for using KEYRING ccache with cifs or nfs rhel8? > > Hi, > > I recently came across a case where a customer preferred to stay with > KEYRING and as default and not installing the 'sssd-kcm' packages for > performance reason. The performance issue was neither caused by nfs nor cifs > but a 3rd party application, nevertheless the customer stayed with KEYRING. > Thank you very much Sumit for the reply. *** Bug 1887494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 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 (selinux-policy bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:4528 |