Re: [PATCH v2] Allow systemd to getattr configfile

On 1/21/20 8:42 AM, Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 1/13/20 1:27 PM, Sugar, David wrote:
>> v2 update - rework, creating interface 'init_systemd_conditional'
>> as suggested.  This grants getattr access to the type provided.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Sugar <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>   policy/modules/services/chronyd.te |  2 ++
>>   policy/modules/system/init.if      | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/policy/modules/services/chronyd.te 
>> b/policy/modules/services/chronyd.te
>> index 5e680d39..7ae8bb5a 100644
>> --- a/policy/modules/services/chronyd.te
>> +++ b/policy/modules/services/chronyd.te
>> @@ -102,6 +102,8 @@ miscfiles_read_localization(chronyd_t)
>>   chronyd_dgram_send_cli(chronyd_t)
>>   chronyd_read_config(chronyd_t)
>> +init_systemd_conditional(chronyd_conf_t)
>> +
>>   optional_policy(`
>>       gpsd_rw_shm(chronyd_t)
>>   ')
>> diff --git a/policy/modules/system/init.if 
>> b/policy/modules/system/init.if
>> index 62ab4da8..5a0a78bf 100644
>> --- a/policy/modules/system/init.if
>> +++ b/policy/modules/system/init.if
>> @@ -3232,6 +3232,32 @@ interface(`init_reload_all_units',`
>>       allow $1 { init_script_file_type systemdunit }:service reload;
>>   ')
>> +
>> +########################################
>> +## <summary>
>> +##      Allow init_t getattr permissions.  Generally
>> +##      needed for types that are used in a Condition
>> +##      predicate.
>> +## </summary>
>> +## <param name="domain">
>> +##      <summary>
>> +##      type accessible by init_t
>> +##      </summary>
>> +## </param>
>> +#
>> +interface(`init_systemd_conditional',`
> 
> systemd_ConditionPath is a more preferable name.
> 

I'm a little confused about the suggested name.  I think this interface 
belongs in init.if due to the requiring of init_t.  Due to this, I think 
it should have the init_ prefix.  I also don't think there are any camel 
case interface names.

Is the name 'init_systemd_condition_path' acceptable?  Or are some of my 
assumptions wrong?

> 
>> +    gen_require(`
>> +        type init_t;
>> +    ')
>> +    allow init_t $1:dir search_dir_perms;
>> +    allow init_t $1:lnk_file read_lnk_file_perms;
>> +    allow init_t $1:fifo_file getattr_fifo_file_perms;
>> +    allow init_t $1:sock_file getattr_sock_file_perms;
>> +    allow init_t $1:file getattr_file_perms;
>> +    allow init_t $1:blk_file getattr_blk_file_perms;
>> +    allow init_t $1:chr_file getattr_chr_file_perms;
>> +')
>> +
>>   ########################################
>>   ## <summary>
>>   ##      Allow unconfined access to send instructions to init
>>
> 
>