Re: udevadm etc

On 12/9/20 7:38 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> In systemd verision 247.1 (which is in Debian/Unstable now) systemd-udevd is a
> symlink to udevadm.  In systemd version 241 (in Debian/Buster) it's not a
> symlink.  The systemd changelog doesn't mention this change so I don't know
> exactly when it happened.
> 
> type_transition init_t udevadm_exec_t:process udevadm_t;
> type_transition initrc_t udevadm_exec_t:process udevadm_t;
> type_transition sysadm_t udevadm_exec_t:process udevadm_t;
> type_transition consolekit_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> type_transition devicekit_disk_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> type_transition hald_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> type_transition hotplug_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> type_transition init_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> type_transition initrc_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> type_transition kernel_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> type_transition virtd_t udev_exec_t:process udev_t;
> 
> Above is a list of the relevant type_transition rules from refpolicy taken
> from git 3 days ago (there don't appear to be any udev changes since then).
> 
> I think that the only thing to do is to have init_t and initrc_t run udevadm
> in the udev_t domain.
> 
> Is it worth having a udevadm_t domain just for running it from sysadm_t or
> should we have that run as udev_t too?

The udevadm_t domain is much smaller than udev_t, and critically doesn't have 
all the device access udev_t has.  Systemd merging the binaries into one doesn't 
necessarily mean the policy has to merge too.

-- 
Chris PeBenito