linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] ima: Introduce IMA namespace

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]

Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:49:43 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, sunyuqiong1988@...il.com,
        mkayaalp@...binghamton.edu, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com,
        serge@...lyn.com, jmorris@...ei.org, christian@...uner.io,
        silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...capital.net,
        jannh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] ima: Introduce IMA namespace

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:20:07PM +0200, krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com wrote:
> From: Krzysztof Struczynski <krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com>
> 
> IMA has not been designed to work with containers. It handles every
> process in the same way, and it cannot distinguish if a process belongs to
> a container or not.
> 
> Containers use namespaces to make it appear to the processes in the
> containers that they have their own isolated instance of the global
> resource. For IMA as well, it is desirable to let processes in the

IMA is brought up on a regular basis with "we want to have this" for
years and then non-one seems to really care enough.

I'm highly skeptical of the value of ~2500 lines of code even if it
includes a bunch of namespace boilerplate. It's yet another namespace,
and yet another security framework.
Why does IMA need to be a separate namespace? Keyrings are tied to user
namespaces why can't IMA be? I believe Eric has even pointed that out
before.

Eric, thoughts?

Christian