Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1696748 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1696748 — Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1697120

On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 22:00 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 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?

Definitely!  Root within the namespace needs to be able to read and
write security.ima in order to (re)sign files, with a specific key
known to that container.  Stefan's code provides different views of
the security xattrs.

Mimi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web