On 11/15/18 8:11 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:56 AM Ravi Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi team ,
On android- with latest kernels 4.14 we are seeing some denials which seem to
be very much genuine to be address . Where kernel is trying to kill its own
created process ( might be for maintenance) .
These are seen in long Stress testing . But I dont see any one adding such
rule in general so the question is do we see any risk which made us not to
add such rules ?
1. avc: denied { kill } for pid=2432 comm="irq/66-90b6300." capability=5
scontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tcontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tclass=capability permissive=0
2. avc: denied { kill } for pid=69 comm="rcuop/6" capability=5
scontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tcontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tclass=capability permissive=0
3. avc: denied { kill } for pid=0 comm="swapper/1" capability=5
scontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tcontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tclass=capability permissive=0
4. avc: denied { kill } for pid=4185 comm="kworker/0:4" capability=5
scontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tcontext=u:r:kernel:s0 tclass=capability permissive=0
This is self capability any one in kernel context should be able to do such
operations I guess.
The reference policy does contain a rule that allows this kind of
operations, see:
https://github.com/SELinuxProject/refpolicy/blob/master/policy/modules/kernel/kernel.te#L203
It is also present in the Fedora policy on my system:
$ sesearch -A -s kernel_t -t kernel_t -c capability -p kill
allow kernel_t kernel_t:capability { audit_control audit_write chown
dac_override dac_read_search fowner fsetid ipc_lock ipc_owner kill
lease linux_immutable mknod net_admin net_bind_service net_broadcast
net_raw setfcap setgid setpcap s
etuid sys_admin sys_boot sys_chroot sys_nice sys_pacct sys_ptrace
sys_rawio sys_resource sys_time sys_tty_config };
Therefore I would say it is perfectly fine to add such rule to your
policy as well.
Android uses a completely different policy not based on the reference
policy at all, and tries to limit even the kernel and init domains to
least privilege. There are a few reasons to limit even the kernel domain:
1) To protect kernel threads and kernel usermodehelpers from being
tricked into misusing their privileges and ensuring that they always
transition to a non-kernel domain upon executing a usermodehelper.
2) To render typical kernel exploits that just switch to the init cred
or otherwise rewrite their cred to use SECINITSID_KERNEL from gaining
full privileges.
There are no unconfined domains in Android policy.
I think we would at least want to know why the permission check is
occurring, as it might reflect a kernel bug. If you can get system call
audit info, then you can see additional information that may be helpful.
_______________________________________________
Selinux mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected].
To get help, send an email containing "help" to [email protected].
