Re: [Non-DoD Source] SELint

[jwcart2 <jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov>]

On 1/16/20 9:37 AM, Burgener, Daniel wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We have created a tool a that I think people on this list may find very
> useful as they do refpolicy related work.  It's called SELint and does
> static code analysis on refpolicy style SELinux policy.  You can find
> the tool on our git repo here:
> 
> https://github.com/TresysTechnology/selint
> 
> It currently has 13 checks for common policy issues, and we hope to add
> more going forward.
> 
> I submitted a pull request to the refpolicy github this morning that
> fixes some of the issues reported by the tool, and hope to continue
> submitting more over the next few days.
> 
> -Daniel
> 

Interesting work. Some of the tests are similar to those in a tool I created in 
2018, selpoltools (https://github.com/jwcart2/selpoltools), but I did not think 
of doing a check for a potentially unescaped regex character. I like that your 
tool is written in c and that you can disable individual checks with a command 
line option.

A couple of comments (which you are probably aware of)
- You will need to teach your program about object_r at some point.

- I ran it on a Refpolicy source tree from earlier in the year and it complained 
about system_u being a non-existent user in the fc files, even though it is 
defined in users.

- I am a little bit confused by what the line out of order (C-001) wants. For 
example, I get the following two warnings

ipsec.te:       118: (C): Line out of order.  It is before line 124 that calls 
an interface located in the kernel module. (C-001)
ipsec.te:       119: (C): Line out of order.  It is before line 124 that is in a 
different section.  (This node is in the section for ipsec_mgmt_t rules and the 
other is in the section for ipsec_t rules.) (C-001)

118 corecmd_shell_domtrans(ipsec_t, ipsec_mgmt_t)
119 allow ipsec_mgmt_t ipsec_t:fd use;
. . .
124 kernel_read_kernel_sysctls(ipsec_t)
125 kernel_rw_net_sysctls(ipsec_t)
126 kernel_* ...

I am guessing that it wants the ipsec_t rules before the ipsec_mgmt_t rules?
I wonder why there aren't similar warnings referring to lines 125-134 which also 
refer to kernel interfaces. I am guessing that it recognizes line 124 as the 
start of the ipsec_t section?


All in all, it looks promising.
Jim

-- 
James Carter <jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov>
National Security Agency