...now it gets ugly. If we use pasta without an existing target
namespace, and run commands directly or spawn a shell, and keep
the pasta_t domain when we do, they won't be able to do much: a
shell might even start, but it's not going to be usable, or to
even display a prompt.
Ideally, pasta should behave like a shell when it spawns a command:
start as unconfined_t and automatically transition to whatever
domain is associated in the specific policy for that command. But
we can't run as unconfined_t, of course.
It would seem natural to switch to unconfined_t "just before", so
that the default transitions happen. But transitions can only happen
when we execvp(), and that's one single transition -- not two.
That is, this approach would work for:
pasta -- sh -c 'ip address show'
but not for:
pasta -- ip address show
If we configure a transition to unconfined_t when we run ip(8), we'll
really try to start that as unconfined_t -- but unconfined_t isn't
allowed as entrypoint for ip(8) itself, and execvp() will fail.
However, there aren't many different types of binaries pasta might
commonly run -- for example, we're unlikely to see pasta used to run
a mount(8) command.
Explicitly set up domain transition for common stuff -- switching to
unconfined_t for bin_t and shells works just fine, ip(8), ping(8),
arping(8) and similar need a different treatment.
While at it, allow commands we spawn to inherit resource limits and
signal masks, because that's what happens by default, and don't
require AT_SECURE sanitisation of the environment (because that
won't happen by default). Slightly unrelated: we also need to
explicitly allow pasta_t to use TTYs, not just PTYs, otherwise
we can't keep stdin and stdout open for shells.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
0af928eaa0