linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 15/16] ima: Move dentries into ima

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: <6de8d349-74f8-7be4-3854-5c4ac72860ad@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 07:40:00 -0500
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.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, jamjoom@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/16] ima: Move dentries into ima_namespace


On 12/10/21 07:09, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 12:49 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>> There's still the problem that if you write the policy, making the file
>>> disappear then unmount and remount securityfs it will come back.  My
>>> guess for fixing this is that we only stash the policy file reference,
>>> create it if NULL but then set the pointer to PTR_ERR(-EINVAL) or
>>> something and refuse to create it for that value.
>> Some sort of indicator that gets stashed in struct ima_ns that the file
>> does not get recreated on consecutive mounts. That shouldn't be hard to
>> fix.
> The policy file disappearing is for backwards compatibility, prior to
> being able to extend the custom policy.  For embedded usecases,
> allowing the policy to be written exactly once might makes sense.  Do
> we really want/need to continue to support removing the policy in
> namespaces?

I don't have an answer but should the behavior for the same #define in 
this case be different for host and namespaces? Or should we just 
'select IMA_WRITE_POLICY and IMA_READ_POLICY' when IMA_NS is selected?


>
> thanks,
>
> Mimi
>