linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] evm: Don't update hmacs in user ns mounts

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <1514094961.5221.132.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:56:01 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Dongsu Park <dongsu@...volk.io>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] evm: Don't update hmacs in user ns mounts

On Sun, 2017-12-24 at 00:12 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Serge,
> 
> On Fri, 2017-12-22 at 22:03 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 03:32:35PM +0100, Dongsu Park wrote:
> > > From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
> > > 
> > > The kernel should not calculate new hmacs for mounts done by
> > > non-root users. Update evm_calc_hmac_or_hash() to refuse to
> > > calculate new hmacs for mounts for non-init user namespaces.
> > > 
> > > Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Cc: James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
> > > Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Hi Mimi,
> > 
> > does this change seem sufficient to you?
> 
> I think this is the correct behavior in the context of fuse file
> systems.  This patch, the "ima: define a new policy option named
> force" patch, and an updated IMA policy should be upstreamed together.
>  The cover letter should provide the motivation for these patches.

Ah, this patch is being upstreamed with the fuse mounts patches.  I
guess Seth is planning on posting the IMA policy changes for fuse
separately.

Mimi