On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 07:40 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:

On 12/10/21 07:09, Mimi Zohar wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 12:49 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:

quoted

quoted

There's still the problem that if you write the policy, making the file
disappear then unmount and remount securityfs it will come back.  My
guess for fixing this is that we only stash the policy file reference,
create it if NULL but then set the pointer to PTR_ERR(-EINVAL) or
something and refuse to create it for that value.

Some sort of indicator that gets stashed in struct ima_ns that the file
does not get recreated on consecutive mounts. That shouldn't be hard to
fix.

The policy file disappearing is for backwards compatibility, prior to
being able to extend the custom policy.  For embedded usecases,
allowing the policy to be written exactly once might makes sense.  Do
we really want/need to continue to support removing the policy in
namespaces?

I don't have an answer but should the behavior for the same #define in 
this case be different for host and namespaces? Or should we just 
'select IMA_WRITE_POLICY and IMA_READ_POLICY' when IMA_NS is selected?

The latter option sounds good.  Being able to analyze the namespace
policy is really important.

thanks,

Mimi