>> An alternative without modifying snap-confine would be to have two 
>> snap-confine profiles, one for
>> strict and one for classic, and adjust the classic template to transition to 
>> the classic
>> snap-confine template which has rules allowing 'rw' access to files and 
>> 'unix' for sockets.
>
> To me this sounds like the easier of the two approaches - can you outline any 
> particular
> (dis)advantages to either approach?

A pro for modifying snap confine means that it can still run under a
restricted profile after it performs aa_change_profile(). The con is
there is a short period when it isn't running under confinement. Without
the investigation, it is not clear to me that the modification will
achieve the objective of avoiding the file_inherit. The code changes to
snap-confine would not be significant.

A pro for using a different template is that it requires no code changes
and is less complex. A con is that the snap-confine policy is weakened
when a classic snap executes another snap. In addition to a lessening of
hardening around snap-confine, it is more difficult to reason about the
confinement of snap-confine.

Considering that snap-confine is designed to be secure and not dependent
on apparmor for its security, it is probably best to use the two-profile
approach and make no code changes. This introduces no changes on systems
with no classic snaps installed. While this will weaken the hardening of
the safety net, there is nothing saying that we have to have a totally
wide open policy for the snap-confine under classic. Eg, while we might
have a wide 'rw' rules, we don't need 'x' or 'm' rules and we can use
explicit deny rules for apparmor policy, libraries snap-confine uses,
etc.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1849753

Title:
  AppArmor profile prohibits classic snap from inheriting file
  descriptors

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/apparmor/+bug/1849753/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to