Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <cd9357bd-1d81-7af3-2882-f7e8cf5bce81@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:18:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/27] ima: Namespace IMA with audit support in IMA-ns
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, serge@hallyn.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, christian.brauner@ubuntu.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, jejb@linux.ibm.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
References: <20220201203735.164593-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220202141329.k5jcsbutpmzv53c3@wittgenstein>
 <3f053d38-00f7-b495-4ea2-3c61fa120284@linux.ibm.com>
 <d08ffbb2f803cd26f4d9697868e138cdb2e71d32.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <d08ffbb2f803cd26f4d9697868e138cdb2e71d32.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2/2/22 11:04, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 09:40 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 2/2/22 09:13, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 03:37:08PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> v10:
>>>>    - Added A-b's; addressed issues from v9
>>>>    - Added 2 patches to support freeing of iint after namespace deletion
>>>>    - Added patch to return error code from securityfs functions
>>>>    - Added patch to limit number of policy rules in IMA-ns to 1024
>>> I'm going to go take a lighter touch with this round of reviews.
>>> First, because I have February off. :)
>>> Second, because I think that someone who is more familiar with IMA and
>>> its requirements should take another look to provide input and ask more
>>> questions. Last time I spoke to Serge he did want to give this a longer
>>> look and maybe also has additional questions.
>> The one problem I am seeing is that we probably cannot support auditing
>> in IMA namespaces since every user can now create an IMA namespace.
>> Unless auditing was namespaced, the way it is now gives too much control
>> to the user to flood the host audit log.
> Stefan, we need to differentiate between the different types of audit
> records being produced by IMA.  Some of these are informational, like
> the policy rules being loaded or "Time of Measure, Time of Use"
> (ToMToU) records.  When we discuss IMA-audit we're referring to the
> file hashes being added in the audit log.  These are the result of the
> IMA "audit" policy rules.
>
> How much of these informational messages should be audited in IMA
> namespaces still needs to be discussed.  For now, feel free to limit
> the audit messages to just the file hashes.
I doubt we should let a user produce informational audit messages or 
audit messages related to file hashes... it's unfortunate, but it opens 
a door for abuse.

> thanks,
>
> Mimi
>