Re: lsetxattr failed, SELINUX_ERR op=setxattr invalid_context

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 9:24 AM Zdenek Pytela <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 12:16 AM Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm running Fedora 35, and I'm trying to replicate a Fedora 36 root snapshot from one Btrfs file system to another, but it fails.
>>
>> This is what I see on CLI (with verbose logging)
>>
>> set_xattr etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d - name=security.selinux data_len=56 data=system_u:object_r:NetworkManager_dispatcher_script_t:s0
>> ERROR: lsetxattr etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d security.selinux=system_u:object_r:NetworkManager_dispatcher_script_t:s0 failed: Invalid argument
>>
>> This is the AVC error:
>>
>> [25325.074972] audit[23509]: AVC avc:  denied  { mac_admin } for  pid=23509 comm="btrfs" capability=33  scontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tcontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tclass=capability2 permissive=0
>> [25325.075188] audit: SELINUX_ERR op=setxattr invalid_context="system_u:object_r:NetworkManager_dispatcher_script_t:s0"
>>
>>
>> I think what's going on is, Fedora 35's SELinux is preventing `btrfs receive` from setting a label it doesn't know. If so, is this definitely the correct behavior? Or is there something `btrfs receive`
>> could do to allow setting this unfamiliar label anyway, or is this an unacceptable risk to set arbitrary labels?
>
> Hi,
>
> I cannot speak for btrfs, but from SELinux PoV this seems to be correct: When a file is restored including extended attributes and the SELinux type is not known, it should fail, probably unlabeled_t will be seen there. If there is no better solution, I'd go with not setting labels at all and restore them later using
>
> fixfiles onboot -F
>

Since a received btrfs snapshot is read-only by design, we can't run
fixfiles on it. But further, since the receive snapshot is intended to
be a fully replicated copy of the original on the send side, the data
and metadata ostensibly need to be the same before it can be
considered "received" for the purpose of subsequent incremental
send|receive tasks.

What about backporting new security labels to older versions of
Fedora, even if they aren't used? Seems to me the security label is
legitimate regardless of whether it's actively used on the older
version of Fedora. It would just be a means to an end, to ensure the
successful replication of data.



-- 
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
selinux mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure