[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: SELinux for BackupPC



Hello,

First of all, thanks for your advices.

It seems that I've not used the right approach for this policy module. I
was using the following :

grep http /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mybackuppc

But this command also catches SELinux denies which are not relevant to BackupPC.

So, I've restarted from scratch, and now use :
audit2allow -m BackupPC -l -i /var/log/audit/audit.log > BackupPC.te

Which only takes the latests entries. 

This way, I've removed some entries I did not understand (such as iso9660_t), and were not appropriate here.


Daniel J Walsh a écrit :
> No alot of these rules are not good.  Could you attach the audit log you
> used to create this.
These rules were build on two different machines (my laptop and the one
were BackupPC is installed for backups).
So as I've rebuild my rules from scratch, the log file is available on
my web server (see links below).
>
> You probably need a context for this
>
> allow httpd_t etc_t:dir write;
> and these
> allow httpd_t usr_t:dir { write add_name };
> allow httpd_t usr_t:file { write create };
>
> Could be as simple as
>
> chcon -t httpd_sys_content_rw_t PATHTODIR
These one gives me an invalid argument... I've used
"httpd_sys_script_rw_t" instead, am I right ?
Also, I were able to remove these three 'allow' entries from my .te and
put only the context in .fc file.
>
> I take it this is the socket file that BackupPC is creating.  I think
> you need a policy for this, and then BackupPC could label it
> appropriately and allow httpd to communicate with it.
>
> allow httpd_t initrc_t:unix_stream_socket connectto;
> allow httpd_t var_log_t:sock_file write;
Indeed, these ones are for the .sock file BackupPC creates at startup.
I don't understand what exactly you mean by 'a policy for this'...
> Not sure what these are either.
>
> allow httpd_t httpd_log_t:sock_file write;
> allow httpd_t httpd_sys_content_t:sock_file write;
It's only a mistake, I had first to put 'sock_file write' for the .sock
file, and then I've changed its context. Doing this, the first rule
becomes obsolete, and audit2allow gave me the second...

New file are here :
- audit.log : http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/backuppc/audit.log
- .te file : http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/backuppc/BackupPC.te
- .fc file : http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/backuppc/BackupPC.fc
- old .te and .fc (from my preceding message) :
http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/backuppc/BackupPC.te.old
- spec file : http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/backuppc/BackupPC.spec

All seems to work correctly with these rules, I wish I made no mistakes
this time... :-)

Regards,
Johan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]