On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 22:00 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:26:14PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 13:17 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

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?

Definitely! ?Root within the namespace needs to be able to read and
write security.ima in order to (re)sign files, with a specific key
known to that container. ?Stefan's code provides different views of
the security xattrs.

Mimi

--
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