From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: serge@hallyn.com (Serge E. Hallyn) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:00:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces In-Reply-To: <1500060374.3583.57.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <847ccb2a-30c0-a94c-df6f-091c8901eaa0@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87bmoo8bxb.fsf@xmission.com> <9a3010e5-ca2b-5e7a-656b-fcc14f7bec4e@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87h8yf7szd.fsf@xmission.com> <65dbe654-0d99-03fa-c838-5a726b462826@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170714133437.GA16737@mail.hallyn.com> <596f808b-e21d-8296-5fef-23c1ce7ab778@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170714173556.GA19669@mail.hallyn.com> <1500060374.3583.57.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20170726030007.GA10087@mail.hallyn.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:26:14PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 13:17 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Which brings us to the semantic question of would it be nice to have > > stacked IMA/EVM on the same file. > > > > I really don't think we do. I think allowing multiple keys for > > different part of trusting files is easy enough that we should have no > > need to fight over which keys do which. > > We definitely want to support different policies on the native and in > the namespace with different keys and keyrings. Ok, so Stefan's code to support userspace in a container reading security.ima and getting back the value for security.ima at uid=1000 (if 1000 is the kuid of the container's root user) is in fact useful to IMA? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html