Re: init_daemon_domain vs init_spec_daemon_domain

[Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org>]

On 11/07/2018 06:14 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> Hello *,
> 
> I've noticed the init_daemon_domain and init_spec_daemon_domain
> interfaces contain quite a bit of duplicated code. As can be seen from
> the patch I just [two weeks ago, but this mail unfortunately didn't go
> out back then due to a problem on my end] posted, this has already
> caused bugs.
> 
> Ideally, init_daemon_domain should just call init_spec_daemon_domain
> and only add a typetransition statement on top of it. However, this is

I'm inclined to accept a patch that will make this so, regardless of the 
below concerns, since there are no usages in refpolicy.



> currently not possible because those two interfaces differ in some
> aspects:
> 
> * i_d_d grants the daemon nscd_use() permissions, while i_s_d_d
>    doesn't. This is most likely an oversight too.
> 
> * i_d_d permits transitions from initrc_t to the daemon domain, while
>    i_s_d_d permits transitions from init_t. This is thoroughly odd. My
>    expectation was that i_s_d_d would allow transitions from initrc_t
>    too, and as far as I understand the situation, transitions directly
>    from init_t do a daemon domain only happen with systemd.
> 
> * The ifdef(init_systemd) blocks of the two interfaces are very
>    different. Could someone familiar with the systemd policy please
>    comment on this?
> 
> * i_s_d_d obviously grants init_t (and initrc_t if that is added in the
>    future) self:process setexec permissions, while i_d_d doesn't. This
>    makes sense, of course, but if we can fix the three other differences
>    I already mentioned, I don't believe this difference alone should
>    block my proposed change.
> 
> Thanks,
> Luis
> 


-- 
Chris PeBenito