passt provides an AppArmor abstraction that covers all the
inner details of its operation, so we can simply import that
and add the libvirt-specific parts on top: namely, passt
needs to be able to create a socket and pid file, while
the libvirt daemon needs to be able to kill passt.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
---
src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu | 15 +++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu b/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
index 9af1333b22..44056b5f14 100644
--- a/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
+++ b/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
@@ -185,6 +185,21 @@
/usr/{lib,lib64}/libswtpm_libtpms.so mr,
/usr/lib/@{multiarch}/libswtpm_libtpms.so mr,
+ # support for passt network back-end
+ /usr/bin/passt Cx -> passt,
+
+ profile passt {
+ /usr/bin/passt r,
+
+ signal (receive) set=("term") peer=/usr/sbin/libvirtd,
+ signal (receive) set=("term") peer=libvirtd,
+ signal (receive) set=("term") peer=virtqemud,
+
+ owner /{,var/}run/libvirt/qemu/passt/* rw,
+
+ include if exists <abstractions/passt>
+ }
+
# for save and resume
/{usr/,}bin/dash rmix,
/{usr/,}bin/dd rmix,
--
2.39.2On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> passt provides an AppArmor abstraction that covers all the
> inner details of its operation, so we can simply import that
> and add the libvirt-specific parts on top: namely, passt
> needs to be able to create a socket and pid file, while
> the libvirt daemon needs to be able to kill passt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
> ---
> src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu b/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
> index 9af1333b22..44056b5f14 100644
> --- a/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
> +++ b/src/security/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
> @@ -185,6 +185,21 @@
> /usr/{lib,lib64}/libswtpm_libtpms.so mr,
> /usr/lib/@{multiarch}/libswtpm_libtpms.so mr,
>
> + # support for passt network back-end
> + /usr/bin/passt Cx -> passt,
> +
> + profile passt {
> + /usr/bin/passt r,
> +
> + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=/usr/sbin/libvirtd,
> + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=libvirtd,
What's the rationale for having both qualified & unqualified
here, but not below ?
> + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=virtqemud,
> +
> + owner /{,var/}run/libvirt/qemu/passt/* rw,
> +
> + include if exists <abstractions/passt>
> + }
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:04:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > + # support for passt network back-end
> > + /usr/bin/passt Cx -> passt,
> > +
> > + profile passt {
> > + /usr/bin/passt r,
> > +
> > + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=/usr/sbin/libvirtd,
> > + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=libvirtd,
>
> What's the rationale for having both qualified & unqualified
> here, but not below ?
Cargo cult. That's what the top-level profile does, so I figured it
would be good enough for the subprofile too.
I've seen stuff like peer=(label=libvirtd) as well, but I haven't
investigated the various notations and how exactly they differ.
There's plenty of room for improvement in the AppArmor profile in
general, but that's a task for another day :)
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 01:28:41PM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:04:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > + # support for passt network back-end
> > > + /usr/bin/passt Cx -> passt,
> > > +
> > > + profile passt {
> > > + /usr/bin/passt r,
> > > +
> > > + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=/usr/sbin/libvirtd,
> > > + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=libvirtd,
> >
> > What's the rationale for having both qualified & unqualified
> > here, but not below ?
>
> Cargo cult. That's what the top-level profile does, so I figured it
> would be good enough for the subprofile too.
>
> I've seen stuff like peer=(label=libvirtd) as well, but I haven't
> investigated the various notations and how exactly they differ.
It looks like using the label= version is only needed when additional
information is passed, for example in
unix (send, receive) type=stream addr=none peer=(label=unconfined addr=none),
Each profile has its own name attached as a label, so
peer=libvirtd
and
peer=(label=libvirtd)
are effectively equivalent. Similarly, the binary running under a
profile also becomes a label, making
peer=libvirtd
and
peer=/usr/sbin/libvirtd
also equivalent, which means that having both in the profile is
redundant.
> There's plenty of room for improvement in the AppArmor profile in
> general, but that's a task for another day :)
Based on the above, I'm working on a patch that cleans up the
situation by sticking with the simpler form. Plus some other stuff.
I don't want to make such a cleanup patch a requirement for this
functionally relevant one though, especially in the not entirely
remote chance that I have completely misunderstood how this stuff
work O:-)
So I'd prefer to keep the cargo cult line for now, and clean
everything up at once later.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 09:23:19AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 01:28:41PM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 07:04:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > > + # support for passt network back-end
> > > > + /usr/bin/passt Cx -> passt,
> > > > +
> > > > + profile passt {
> > > > + /usr/bin/passt r,
> > > > +
> > > > + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=/usr/sbin/libvirtd,
> > > > + signal (receive) set=("term") peer=libvirtd,
> > >
> > > What's the rationale for having both qualified & unqualified
> > > here, but not below ?
> >
> > Cargo cult. That's what the top-level profile does, so I figured it
> > would be good enough for the subprofile too.
> >
> > I've seen stuff like peer=(label=libvirtd) as well, but I haven't
> > investigated the various notations and how exactly they differ.
>
> It looks like using the label= version is only needed when additional
> information is passed, for example in
>
> unix (send, receive) type=stream addr=none peer=(label=unconfined addr=none),
>
> Each profile has its own name attached as a label, so
>
> peer=libvirtd
>
> and
>
> peer=(label=libvirtd)
>
> are effectively equivalent. Similarly, the binary running under a
> profile also becomes a label, making
>
> peer=libvirtd
>
> and
>
> peer=/usr/sbin/libvirtd
>
> also equivalent, which means that having both in the profile is
> redundant.
>
> > There's plenty of room for improvement in the AppArmor profile in
> > general, but that's a task for another day :)
>
> Based on the above, I'm working on a patch that cleans up the
> situation by sticking with the simpler form. Plus some other stuff.
>
> I don't want to make such a cleanup patch a requirement for this
> functionally relevant one though, especially in the not entirely
> remote chance that I have completely misunderstood how this stuff
> work O:-)
>
> So I'd prefer to keep the cargo cult line for now, and clean
> everything up at once later.
Sure, if its already inconsistent, then this makes it no worse...
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.