[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c9112a2-33f3-0c29-c944-1d129a0026e7@tycho.nsa.gov>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 13:02:27 -0400
From: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+21016130b0580a9de3b5@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
tyhicks@...onical.com, John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
SELinux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
"russell@...er.com.au" <russell@...er.com.au>,
Laurent Bigonville <bigon@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING in apparmor_secid_to_secctx
On 09/04/2018 11:38 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>>>> So why not ask for help from the SELinux community? I've cc'd the selinux
>>>> list and a couple of folks involved in Debian selinux. I see a couple of
>>>> options but I don't know your constraints for syzbot:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Run an instance of syzbot on a distro that supports SELinux enabled
>>>> out
>>>> of the box like Fedora. Then you don't have to fight with SELinux and can
>>>> just focus on syzbot, while still testing SELinux enabled and enforcing.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Report the problems you are having with enabling SELinux on newer
>>>> Debian
>>>> to the selinux list and/or the Debian selinux package maintainers so that
>>>> someone can help you resolve them.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Back-port the cgroup2 policy definitions to your wheezy policy,
>>>> rebuild
>>>> it, and install that. We could help provide guidance on that. I think
>>>> you'll need to rebuild the base policy on wheezy; in distributions with
>>>> modern SELinux userspace, one could do it just by adding a CIL module
>>>> locally.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Stephen!
>>>
>>> I would like to understand first if failing mount(2) for unknown fs is
>>> selinux bug or not. Because if it is and it is fixed, then it would
>>> resolve the problem without actually doing anything (well, at least on
>>> our side :)).
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think that's a selinux kernel regression, previously reported here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/6/658
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't think it has been fixed upstream. Generally people
>> using SELinux with a newer kernel are also using a newer policy. That said,
>> I agree it is a regression and ought to be fixed.
>
>
> How hard is it to fix it? We are on upstream head, so once it's in we
> are ready to go.
> Using multiple images is somewhat problematic (besides the fact that I
> don't know how to build a fedora image) because syzbot does not
> capture what image was used, and in the docs we just provide the
> single image, so people will start complaining that bugs don't
> reproduce but they are just using a wrong image.
I'll take a look and see if I can provide a trivial fix.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists