[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1524081472.3272.319.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:57:52 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, tycho@...ker.com,
serge@...lyn.com, sunyuqiong1988@...il.com, david.safford@...com,
mkayaalp@...binghamton.edu, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
Yuqiong Sun <suny@...ibm.com>,
Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] ima: extend clone() with IMA namespace
support
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 09:09 -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 04/13/2018 09:25 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > [Cc'ing John Johansen]
> >
> > On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 18:01 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > [...]
> >> As such I expect the best way to create the ima namespace is by simply
> >> writing to securityfs/imafs. Possibly before the user namespace is
> >> even unshared. That would allow IMA to keep track of things from
> >> before a container is created.
> >
>
> I do think this is generally the right approach for LSMs when looking
> forward to LSM stacking and more LSMs.
>
>
> > My initial thought was to stage IMA namespacing with just IMA-audit
> > first, followed by either IMA-measurement or IMA-appraisal. This
> > would allow us to get the basic IMA namespacing framework working and
> > defer dealing with the securityfs related namespacing of the IMA
> > policy and measurement list issues to later.
> >
> > By tying IMA namespacing to a securityfs ima/unshare file, we would
> > need to address the securityfs issues first.
> >
>
> well it depends on what you want to do. It would be possible to have
> a simple file (not a jump link) within securityfs that IMA could use
> without having to deal with all the securityfs issues first. However it
> does require that securityfs (not necessarily imafs) be visible within
> the mount namespace of the task doing the setup.
Eric, would you be OK with that?
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists