Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <46156a90-d6a6-a0cc-247a-3ceb29f1cf75@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 15:45:26 -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 26/27] ima: Limit number of policy rules in
 non-init_ima_ns
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     serge@hallyn.com, 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>
 <20220201203735.164593-27-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
 <5e4a862917785972281bbcb483404da01b71e801.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <479f09e7-0d39-0281-45ef-5cce4861d24d@linux.ibm.com>
 <8a4f9cb6cab5ba04eb61e346d0fca16efa4c6703.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <8a4f9cb6cab5ba04eb61e346d0fca16efa4c6703.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2/23/22 12:04, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-23 at 11:37 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 2/23/22 10:38, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2022-02-01 at 15:37 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> Limit the number of policy rules one can set in non-init_ima_ns to a
>>>> hardcoded 1024 rules. If the user attempts to exceed this limit by
>>>> setting too many additional rules, emit an audit message with the cause
>>>> 'too-many-rules' and simply ignore the newly added rules.
>>> This paragraph describes 'what' you're doing, not 'why'.  Please prefix
>>> this paragraph with a short, probably one sentence, reason for the
>>> change.
>>>> Switch the accounting for the memory allocated for IMA policy rules to
>>>> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT so that cgroups kernel memory accounting takes effect.
>>> Does this change affect the existing IMA policy rules for init_ima_ns?
>> There's typically no cgroup for the int_ima_ns, so not effect on
>> init_ima_ns.
>>
>> Here's the updated text:
>>
>> Limit the number of policy rules one can set in non-init_ima_ns to a
>> hardcoded 1024 rules to restrict the amount of memory used for IMA's
>> policy.
> The question is "why" there should be a difference between the
> init_ima_ns and non-init_ima_ns cases.  Perhaps something like, "Only


Chistian had suggested it to not have the number of policy rules unbounded.


> host root with CAP_SYS_ADMIN may write init_ima_ns policy rules, but in
> the non-init_ima_ns case root in the namespace with CAP_MAC_ADMIN
> privileges may write IMA policy rules.  Limit the total number of IMA
> policy rules per namespace."

What does it have to do with CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_MAC_ADMIN and why 
mention these here? It seem primarily a limit of number of rules to 
avoid huge kernel memory consumption in the case that a cgroup limit for 
memory was not set up.


>
>>   Ignore the added rules if the user attempts to exceed this
>> limit by setting too many additional rules.
>>
>> Switch the accounting for the memory allocated for IMA policy rules to
>> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT so that cgroups kernel memory accounting takes effect.
>> This switch has no effect on the init_ima_ns.
> thanks,
>
> Mimi
>