Message-ID: <70e68bb6fd8e70b32fa2404768a6240791546496.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/16] ima: Move dentries into ima_namespace
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
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 10:48:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <9806a2ba-8b45-3bb8-22c5-797ab2affaac@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20211208221818.1519628-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
         <20211208221818.1519628-16-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
         <20211209143428.ip6bwry5hqtee5vy@wittgenstein>
         <20211209143749.wk4agkynfqdzftbl@wittgenstein>
         <fb99af21f029b8072435e35731b919f4ec98f89d.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <e2feaf2f6ac4bc82f328f94ca35d14cdc3ca79d1.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <20211210114934.tacjnwryihrsx6ln@wittgenstein>
         <2587716d7d021c35e3b6ef22b6e30f44c2b3f98e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <6de8d349-74f8-7be4-3854-5c4ac72860ad@linux.ibm.com>
         <d8a6a6827da17825c1aa011256b96d195b1ebf13.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <66b377f6-40b4-77da-c02b-2650fa72d0b4@linux.ibm.com>
         <d6011a5a40c3c304f386a328385836ba9838baf9.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <b8f3fe8de8788da92c3822912c11404a46531ac2.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <9806a2ba-8b45-3bb8-22c5-797ab2affaac@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 10:32 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 12/10/21 10:26, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 09:26 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 09:17 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >>> On 12/10/21 08:02, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>> Ok, I will adjust the Kconfig for this then. This then warrants the
> >>> question whether to move the dentry into the ima_namespace. The
> >>> current code looks like this.
> >>>
> >>> #if !defined(CONFIG_IMA_WRITE_POLICY) &&
> >>> !defined(CONFIG_IMA_READ_POLICY)
> >>>           securityfs_remove(ns->policy_dentry);
> >>>           ns->policy_dentry = NULL;
> >>>           ns->policy_dentry_removed = true;
> >>> #elif defined(CONFIG_IMA_WRITE_POLICY)
> >>>
> >>> With IMA_NS selecting IMA_WRITE_POLICY and IMA_READ_POLICY the above
> >>> wouldn't be necessary anymore but I find it 'cleaner' to still have
> >>> the dentry isolated rather than it being a global static as it was
> >>> before...
> >> This is really, really why you don't want the semantics inside the
> >> namespace to differ from those outside, because it creates confusion
> >> for the people reading the code, especially with magically forced
> >> config options like this.  I'd strongly suggest you either keep the
> >> semantic in the namespace or eliminate it entirely.
> >>
> >> If you really, really have to make the namespace behave differently,
> >> then use global variables and put a big comment on that code saying it
> >> can never be reached once CONFIG_IMA_NS is enabled.
> > The problem seems to be with removing the securityfs policy file.
> > Instead of removing it, just make it inacessible for the "if
> > !defined(CONFIG_IMA_WRITE_POLICY) && !defined(CONFIG_IMA_READ_POLICY)"
> > case.
> 
> So we would then leave it up to the one building the kernel to select 
> the proper compile time options (suggested ones being IMA_WRITE_POLICY 
> and IMA_READ_POLICY being enabled?) and behavior of host and IMA 
> namespace is then the same per those options? Removing the file didn't 
> seem the problem to me but more like whether the host should ever behave 
> differently from the namespace.

You proposed "select IMA_WRITE_POLICY and IMA_READ_POLICY'" when IMA_NS
is selected.  At least IMA_READ_POLICY should be enabled for
namespaces.

In addition, if removing the securityfs file after a custom policy is
loaded complicates namespacing, then don't remove it.

thanks,

Mimi