linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:03:39 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, lkp@...org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tycho@...ker.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
        christian.brauner@...lbox.org, amir73il@...il.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 11:52 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:48 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > The concern is with a shared filesystems.  In that case, for IMA it
> > would make sense to support a native and a namespace xattr.  If due
> > to xattr space limitations we have to limit the number of xattrs,
> > then we should limit it to two - a native and a namespace version,
> > with a "uid=" tag - first namespace gets permission to write the
> > namespace xattr.  Again, like in the layered case, if the namespace
> > xattr doesn't exist, fall back to using the native xattr.
> 
> Just on this point: if we're really concerned about the need on shared
> filesystems to have multiple IMA signatures per file, might it not make
> sense simply to support multiple signatures within the security.ima
> xattr? The rules for writing signature updates within user namespaces
> would be somewhat complex (say only able to replace a signature for
> which you demonstrate you possess the key) but it would lead to an
> implementation which would work for traditional shared filesystems
> (like NFS) as well as containerised bind mounts.

Writing security.ima requires being root with CAP_SYS_ADMIN
privileges.  I wouldn't want to give root within the namespace
permission to over write or just extend the native security.ima.

Mimi