From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677A3C282C4 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3740B222C7 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730096AbfBLWv5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:51:57 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:60608 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730088AbfBLWv5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:51:57 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1CMmg73004034 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:51:56 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qm3u18837-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:51:55 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:53 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:49 -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 x1CMpnUK56229978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:49 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6030A405B; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A87A4054; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.91.85]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:51:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Fix overlayfs on EVM From: Mimi Zohar To: Amir Goldstein , Fabian Vogt Cc: linux-integrity , Miklos Szeredi , overlayfs , Ignaz Forster Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:51:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20190211165323.9369-1-iforster@suse.com> <3938260.lArqBy00Sx@linux-e202.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19021222-4275-0000-0000-0000030EBE3C X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19021222-4276-0000-0000-0000381CD4F3 Message-Id: <1550011897.12743.310.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-12_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902120156 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org > > > If my assumptions so far are correct, then the effort for making > > > IMA/EVM work with overlayfs should focus around finding the > > > places where overlayfs uses lower level vfs interface (often > > > vfs_xxx helpers) and make sure that the IMA hooks are place > > > in those lower vfs interfaces, just like vfs_create() patch does > > > and like vfs_tmpfile() patch did before it. > > > > So basically turning on NOIMA for overlayfs while ensuring that integrity > > checks and operations still perform as expected? > > > > Yes. > As far as IMA is concerned, Overlayfs is like a filesystem user from kernel. > Very similar to knfsd in that respect. Fabian, if you're thinking of disabling IMA-appraisal on overlay filesystems, have you tried defining an appraise policy rule based on the overlayfs magic number (eg. dont_appraise fsmagic=0x794c7630)? Mimi