Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] ima: extend clone() with IMA namespace support
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
References: <20180309201421.6150-1-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180309201421.6150-2-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87vadxfwqj.fsf@xmission.com>
 <c18b6e92-57f0-5994-eb60-5fadc6671832@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1521135192.5348.64.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <2183a3b4-6270-d2e9-70ad-a7399eb1681c@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1521139535.5348.89.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <0dc5b856-8dc6-7b5a-eeac-febd19f6498c@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1521140467.5348.94.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <056e5b9e-b4d3-1862-baea-06dda4bd0713@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     mkayaalp@cs.binghamton.edu,
        Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        sunyuqiong1988@gmail.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david.safford@ge.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:04:16 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <056e5b9e-b4d3-1862-baea-06dda4bd0713@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7e015d3c-4fab-3d69-711b-2ebbad07018f@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/15/2018 03:15 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> 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 <dhowells@redhat.com>
>>>>>> 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
>
> Well, the configuration I talked about above was assuming that we have 
> an appraisal policy active in the IMA namespace, which is now tied to 
> the user namespace that was just joined.
>
> If we are fine with the side effects of an IMA policy active as part 
> of a user namespace then let's go with it. The side effects in case of 
> an active IMA appraisal may then be that files cannot be 
> read/accessed, or file measurements or IMA auditing may occur.
>
> The alternative is we have an independent IMA namespace. If one joins 
> the USER namespace and there are no IMA-related side effects. If one 
> joins the IMA namespace its IMA policy should start being enforced. If 
> the current active USER namespace has the keys that go with the 
> signatures of the filesystem, then we're fine from the appraisal 
> perspective. If not, then IMA namespace joining may prevent file 
> accesses.

With these differences pointed out, which path do we want to go now ? 
Eric ? James ?

    Stefan