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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no 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 587F1C433E7 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDD31206EB for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="smAOh1vp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EDD31206EB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=containers-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F3586AF4; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3qvjfKbT0hQU; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC6D86ADF; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04BBC0052; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C3FC0051 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57E9203E2 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rkd6aXEB3K2h for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A6C203A6 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 082JcAus088084; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:55:09 -0400 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=0Ea0UcfMe7PHsrVD0pFOiv8VCaP3XQXJw+mmhy0kNNI=; b=smAOh1vp77+krhOR+OeLIDMQOZBPjysMP4piRZ0DlNug5kBuKNY29qDhcQlmpw2APScC MltcABAA2oB9SdFDxc1n+bTtAVK6owkaodfN+HiHrGZrz7Rz4I/wCWaMULSgIRX8Nx5B 2Xp2T+g+om7rgyTJlASCHtCYLxbc908pnFZCyWL7GvuYRiMGO6kBzZbPlfQvP1/fGRbd gycVy7KtNJ4Ck94fYmyxBnO+Z6vffeIHFk45mCj3fp4su0x3rH0RiQP4dTmmgGlM91b9 Fu0kqEO4mjRYI5mEXMrJuuNebPUqCFWNGsHci1fz65eKbCVS3waZxiFvSeTMUWs5M8fA Hw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33afsubr8c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:55:09 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 082JcBUT088215; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:55:08 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33afsubr7j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:55:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 082JpFm6029703; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:05 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 337en8d261-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Sep 2020 19:55:05 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 082Jt36962325230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:03 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FA4A405B; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:55:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8FAA405F; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:54:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-f45666cc-3089-11b2-a85c-c57d1a57929f.ibm.com (unknown [9.160.121.98]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:54:59 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] ima: Introduce IMA namespace From: Mimi Zohar To: Christian Brauner , krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:54:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200818164943.va3um7toztazcfud@wittgenstein> References: <20200818152037.11869-1-krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com> <20200818164943.va3um7toztazcfud@wittgenstein> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-12.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-09-02_14:2020-09-02, 2020-09-02 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1011 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009020178 Cc: mkayaalp@cs.binghamton.edu, sunyuqiong1988@gmail.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, jannh@google.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org X-BeenThere: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Containers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: containers-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "Containers" On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:49 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:20:07PM +0200, krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com wrote: > > From: Krzysztof Struczynski > > > > IMA has not been designed to work with containers. It handles every > > process in the same way, and it cannot distinguish if a process belongs to > > a container or not. > > > > Containers use namespaces to make it appear to the processes in the > > containers that they have their own isolated instance of the global > > resource. For IMA as well, it is desirable to let processes in the > > IMA is brought up on a regular basis with "we want to have this" for > years and then non-one seems to really care enough. There is a lot of interest in IMA namespacing, but the question always comes back to how to enable it. Refer to https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/IMA_Namespacing_design_considerations for Stefan's analysis. I understand "containers" is not a kernel construct, but from my very limited perspective, IMA namespacing only makes sense in the context of a "container". The container owner may want to know which files have been accessed/executed (measurements, remote attestation) and/or constrain which files may be accessed/executed based on signatures (appraisal). > > I'm highly skeptical of the value of ~2500 lines of code even if it > includes a bunch of namespace boilerplate. It's yet another namespace, > and yet another security framework. > Why does IMA need to be a separate namespace? Keyrings are tied to user > namespaces why can't IMA be? In the context of a container, the measurement list and IMA/EVM keyrings need to be setup before the first file is measured, signature verified, or file hash included in the audit log. > I believe Eric has even pointed that out > before. > > Eric, thoughts? Any help with the above scenario would very be much appreciated. Mimi _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers