Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces

From	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces
Date	2017-07-26 05:10 +0200
Message-ID	<u7kRX-3fc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <u38Z4-44P-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3aHw-5hS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3cJl-6Ez-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3erM-7Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <u3erM-7Qa-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:26:14PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 13:17 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Which brings us to the semantic question of would it be nice to have
> > stacked IMA/EVM on the same file.
> > 
> > I really don't think we do.  I think allowing multiple keys for
> > different part of trusting files is easy enough that we should have no
> > need to fight over which keys do which.
> 
> We definitely want to support different policies on the native and in
> the namespace with different keys and keyrings.

Ok, so Stefan's code to support userspace in a container reading
security.ima and getting back the value for security.ima@uid=1000
(if 1000 is the kuid of the container's root user) is in fact
useful to IMA?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> - 2017-07-26 05:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-07-26 16:00 +0200

csiph-web