Steven Monai writes:
>Okay. I have installed the latest bind9 from unstable (1:9.11.5.P4+dfsg-3), 
>and have purged my local changes to the 'local/usr.sbin.named' apparmor file. 

I neglected to mention that I made the same changes to both of my test domain 
controllers, which are named "dc1" and "dc2".
>
>For now, I have also put the 'usr.sbin.named' profile in complain mode, 
>because I want to minimize the breakage my testing users experience. I will 
>watch for new apparmor="ALLOWED" logs in my system logs over the next several 
>days, and will report back
>with my findings. (If the logs remain quiet for a few days, I will try 
>'enforce' mode.)

Here are the relevant "complain" logs from yesterday. First, two log lines from 
dc1:

Apr 23 09:45:07 dc1 kernel: [    9.051546] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556037907.520:10): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="open" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb" pid=419 
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrc"
denied_mask="wrc" fsuid=108 ouid=0
Apr 23 09:45:07 dc1 kernel: [    9.051717] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556037907.520:11): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="file_lock" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb" pid=419 
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wk"
denied_mask="wk" fsuid=108 ouid=0


Second, ten log lines from dc2:

Apr 23 09:50:46 dc2 kernel: [    7.380094] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038246.972:10): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="open" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb" pid=399 
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrc"
denied_mask="wrc" fsuid=108 ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:46 dc2 kernel: [    7.380275] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038246.972:11): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="file_lock" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb" pid=399 
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wk"
denied_mask="wk" fsuid=108 ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.405179] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.000:12): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="open" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named"
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/CN=SCHEMA,CN=CONFIGURATION,DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
 pid=399 comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrc" denied_mask="wrc" fsuid=108 
ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.405183] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.000:13): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="file_lock" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named"
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/CN=SCHEMA,CN=CONFIGURATION,DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
 pid=399 comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wk" denied_mask="wk" fsuid=108 
ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.502001] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.096:14): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="open" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" 
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/CN=CONFIGURATION,DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
pid=399 comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrc" denied_mask="wrc" fsuid=108 
ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.502272] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.096:15): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="file_lock" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" 
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/CN=CONFIGURATION,DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
pid=399 comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wk" denied_mask="wk" fsuid=108 
ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.560520] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.152:16): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="open" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" 
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
 pid=399
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrc" denied_mask="wrc" fsuid=108 ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.561039] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.156:17): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="file_lock" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" 
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
 pid=399
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wk" denied_mask="wk" fsuid=108 ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.571584] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.164:18): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="open" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" 
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/DC=DOMAINDNSZONES,DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
pid=399 comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrc" denied_mask="wrc" fsuid=108 
ouid=0
Apr 23 09:50:47 dc2 kernel: [    7.571822] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556038247.164:19): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="file_lock" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" 
name="/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/sam.ldb.d/DC=DOMAINDNSZONES,DC=TEST,DC=AD,DC=SD57,DC=BC,DC=CA.ldb"
pid=399 comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wk" denied_mask="wk" fsuid=108 
ouid=0


>From the above logs, it appears to me that the 'usr.sbin.named' apparmor 
>profile in bind9 version 1:9.11.5.P4+dfsg-3 is still missing some rule(s) to 
>cover the use-case of Samba BIND9_DLZ for buster. Perhaps a rule like this 
>would suffice to silence the
logs I showed above:

/var/lib/samba/bind-dns/dns/** rwk,


Finally, I don't see anything in the apparmor profile to deal with the 
following three logs, which I reported previously:

Apr 23 00:49:42 dc1 kernel: [1525968.058180] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556005782.883:36): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="mknod" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/var/tmp/krb5_RCD4Hak1" pid=426 
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="c" denied_mask="c"
fsuid=108 ouid=108
Apr 23 00:49:42 dc1 kernel: [1525968.058465] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556005782.883:37): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="open" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/var/tmp/krb5_RCD4Hak1" pid=426 
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrc" denied_mask="wrc"
fsuid=108 ouid=108
Apr 23 00:49:43 dc1 kernel: [1525968.189027] audit: type=1400 
audit(1556005783.019:38): apparmor="ALLOWED" operation="rename_src" 
profile="/usr/sbin/named" name="/var/tmp/krb5_RCD4Hak1" pid=426 
comm="isc-worker0000" requested_mask="wrd" denied_mask="wrd"
fsuid=108 ouid=108


Perhaps a rule like this would suffice to cover these logs:

/var/tmp/krb5_* rwk,


I have added the two rules I suggested to 
'/etc/apparmor.d/local/usr.sbin.named' on both of my test servers. My testing 
continues with the 'usr.sbin.named' profile in 'complain' mode. I will continue 
to report back here with my findings.

-S.M.


Reply via email to