[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] ima: extend clone() with IMA namespace support
On 03/15/2018 03:01 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 14:51 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 03/15/2018 02:45 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> going to need some type of keyring namespace and there's
>>>>> already
>>>>> one hanging off the user_ns:
>>>>> commit f36f8c75ae2e7d4da34f4c908cebdb4aa42c977e
>>>>> Author: David Howells <>
>>>>> Date: Tue Sep 24 10:35:19 2013 +0100
>>>>> KEYS: Add per-user_namespace registers for persistent
>>>>> per-UID
>>>>> kerberos caches
>>>> The benefit for IMA would be that this would then tie the keys
>>>> needed for appraising to the IMA namespace's policy.
>>>> However, if you have an appraise policy in your IMA namespace,
>>>> which is now hooked to the user namespace, and you join that user
>>>> namespace but your files don't have signatures, nothing will
>>>> execute anymore. That's now a side effect of joining this user
>>>> namespace unless we have a magic exception. My feeling is,
>>>> people may not like that...
>>> Agree, but I think the magic might be to populate the ima keyring
>>> with the parent on user_ns creation. That way the user_ns owner
>>> can delete the parent keys if they don't like them, but by default
>>> the parent appraisal policy should just work.
>> That may add keys to your keyring but doesn't get you signatures on
>> your files.
> But it doesn't need to. The only way we'd get a failure is if the file
> is already being appraised and we lose access to the key. If the
> parent policy isn't appraisal, entering the IMA NS won't cause
> appraisal to be turned on unless the owner asks for it, in which case
> it's caveat emptor: As it works today, if as root I add a default
> appraisal policy to IMA without either a key or xattrs, I get an
> unusable system.

When I post a next implementation for the spawning if an IMA namespace,
what shall be the criterion for accepting it?


> James
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-22 17:47    [W:0.147 / U:26.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site