On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 12:53 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:50:29PM -0400, Mehmet Kayaalp wrote:

quoted

From: Yuqiong Sun <redacted>

Add new CONFIG_IMA_NS config option.??Let clone() create a new IMA
namespace upon CLONE_NEWNS flag. Add ima_ns data structure in
nsproxy.
ima_ns is allocated and freed upon IMA namespace creation and exit.
Currently, the ima_ns contains no useful IMA data but only a dummy
interface. This patch creates the framework for namespacing the
different
aspects of IMA (eg. IMA-audit, IMA-measurement, IMA-appraisal).

Signed-off-by: Yuqiong Sun <redacted>

Changelog:
* Use CLONE_NEWNS instead of a new CLONE_NEWIMA flag

Hi,

So this means that every mount namespace clone will clone a new IMA
namespace.??Is that really ok?

Based on what: space concerns (struct ima_ns is reasonably small)? or
whether tying it to the mount namespace is the correct thing to do. ?On
the latter, it does seem that this should be a property of either the
mount or user ns rather than its own separate ns. ?I could see a use
where even a container might want multiple ima keyrings within the
container (say containerised apache service with multiple tenants), so
instinct tells me that mount ns is the correct granularity for this.

James

--
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