Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09524C433F5 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241067AbhLJNGR (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:06:17 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:30934 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238148AbhLJNGP (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:06:15 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1BAD1PqS009950; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:25 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=7Af6OiZfeZr/MWIUPLN9S9F3O/cq0ozE5pKi902+JhU=; b=VIimoFqzwYSemEUvAGLZOgPnFa+6twuv4QVIz9NEIawxVIeqjIlmXxa0oNKxcR6vvB/Y m1is076hlzEfYkmgrWr0c/1g/c4HmKeaVaMSlnOUfmmpVm4hTxdfbY1K2CqOt5SEJDYm F9pFJx5AUOGc9MAGfCC85pFKhM7YKIbz9wn8Q/vm7B1Zkl3VQJhhxWhNTZkYLggrsGRl wNUw4m4cZvoUwDUSaJKjNNbTBa34u59ifqDceMLWwjVEuNYvG0DC+8jnhnN/1Y0EZe8E NUheBS7+4MH7OPpTyMHHTi8KrdnRA4qADB5r2TiqB7ni1bUfkhTgwiIdAgCPBdAlD9Nl sQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cv6g719u0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:24 +0000 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1BAD1Tl6010423; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:23 GMT Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cv6g719sh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:23 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1BAD25LM013707; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:20 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3cqyyagw0j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:20 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1BAD2G8Q30474724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:16 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71938A4054; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9856A405C; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sig-9-65-75-5.ibm.com (unknown [9.65.75.5]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:02:13 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/16] ima: Move dentries into ima_namespace From: Mimi Zohar To: Stefan Berger , Christian Brauner , James Bottomley Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, serge@hallyn.com, containers@lists.linux.dev, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, mpeters@redhat.com, lhinds@redhat.com, lsturman@redhat.com, puiterwi@redhat.com, jamjoom@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul@paul-moore.com, rgb@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:02:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <6de8d349-74f8-7be4-3854-5c4ac72860ad@linux.ibm.com> References: <20211208221818.1519628-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com> <20211208221818.1519628-16-stefanb@linux.ibm.com> <20211209143428.ip6bwry5hqtee5vy@wittgenstein> <20211209143749.wk4agkynfqdzftbl@wittgenstein> <20211210114934.tacjnwryihrsx6ln@wittgenstein> <2587716d7d021c35e3b6ef22b6e30f44c2b3f98e.camel@linux.ibm.com> <6de8d349-74f8-7be4-3854-5c4ac72860ad@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: u2ZDp_iAvevGhiUByT_N8lL_5jN6cTpM X-Proofpoint-GUID: ANty0JWsO92036xgJFMrTIdrfEXb7u7e X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2021-12-10_03,2021-12-10_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2112100073 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 07:40 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > 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? The latter option sounds good. Being able to analyze the namespace policy is really important. thanks, Mimi