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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Don't autogenerate seclabels of type 'none'

On 08/16/2017 05:23 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:07:10PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
When security drivers are active and domain def contains
no <seclabel> elements, there is no need to autogenerate
seclabels when starting the domain, e.g.

   <seclabel type='none' model='apparmor'/>

In fact, autogenerating the label can result in needless
save/restore and migration failures when the security driver
is not active on the restore/migration target.

The virSecurityManagerGenLabel function in src/security_manager.c
even has logic to skip autogenerated labels, but the logic
is a bit flawed. Autogeneration should be skipped when the
domain has not seclabels, i.e. vm->nseclabels == 0.

Resolves: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1051017
Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig suse com>
  src/security/security_manager.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/security/security_manager.c b/src/security/security_manager.c
index 013bbc37e..441c4d1fd 100644
--- a/src/security/security_manager.c
+++ b/src/security/security_manager.c
@@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ virSecurityManagerGenLabel(virSecurityManagerPtr mgr,
                  virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
                                 _("Unconfined guests are not allowed on this host"));
                  goto cleanup;
-            } else if (vm->nseclabels && generated) {
+            } else if (vm->nseclabels == 0 && generated) {

This would likely cause a regression like we did prior to commit e4a28a3281
which introduced the condition you're changing, IOW if you specify a seclabel
specifically, you're still going to autogenerate one of type='none'.

I had read that commit, but after looking again I misinterpreted it.

So my
question is, what's the point of autogenerating seclabel of type='none' anyway?
Shouldn't we just skip type='none' altogether when it's us who generated it?

IMO, yes, and that is what I was trying to do. One flaw in my thinking was not considering the security_default_confined setting. I changed the logic in virSecurityManagerGenLabel a bit, fixed the securityselinuxtest, and sent a V2



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