[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <957f65ce-df0e-5980-57c3-57c05291ccc6@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:41:43 -0500
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc: zohar@...ux.ibm.com, serge@...lyn.com,
christian.brauner@...ntu.com, containers@...ts.linux.dev,
dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com, lsturman@...hat.com,
puiterwi@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, jamjoom@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
Denis Semakin <denis.semakin@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 15/20] capabilities: Introduce CAP_INTEGRITY_ADMIN
On 11/30/21 12:27, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 8:06 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> From: Denis Semakin <denis.semakin@...wei.com>
>>
>> This patch introduces CAP_INTEGRITY_ADMIN, a new capability that allows
>> to setup IMA (Integrity Measurement Architecture) policies per container
>> for non-root users.
>
> Why not use CAP_MAC_ADMIN? IMA is a mandatory policy. The scope
> is system security administration. It seems to fit your needs.
> I introduced CAP_MAC_ADMIN for Smack, and believe that IMA using
> it would be completely appropriate.
Fine by me. I suppose we could be reusing it later on also for setting
file extended attributes for IMA?
Stefan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists