lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Linux-ima-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/5] ima: extend clone() with IMA namespace support
From
Date
On 07/27/2017 01:18 PM, Magalhaes, Guilherme (Brazil R&D-CL) wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mimi Zohar [mailto:zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> Sent: quinta-feira, 27 de julho de 2017 11:39
>> To: Magalhaes, Guilherme (Brazil R&D-CL)
>> <guilherme.magalhaes@hpe.com>; Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
>> Cc: Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp@cs.binghamton.edu>; Yuqiong Sun
>> <sunyuqiong1988@gmail.com>; containers <containers@lists.linux-
>> foundation.org>; linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; David Safford
>> <david.safford@ge.com>; James Bottomley
>> <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>; linux-security-module <linux-
>> security-module@vger.kernel.org>; ima-devel <linux-ima-
>> devel@lists.sourceforge.net>; Yuqiong Sun <suny@us.ibm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Linux-ima-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/5] ima: extend clone() with IMA
>> namespace support
>>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 12:51 +0000, Magalhaes, Guilherme (Brazil R&D-
>> CL) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 16:08 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:57:57PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 15:46 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:11:29PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/25/2017 03:48 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 12:08 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 14:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:49:14AM -0700, James Bottomley
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Yuqiong Sun <suny@us.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <suny@us.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> Mostly the latter. The other would be not so much space
>>>>>>>>>>> concerns as time concerns. Many things use new mounts
>>>>>>>>>>> namespaces, and we wouldn't want multiple IMA calls on all
>>>>>>>>>>> file accesses by all of those.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder whether we could use echo 1 >
>>>>>>>>>>> /sys/kernel/security/ima/newns as the trigger for requesting
>>>>>>>>>>> a new ima ns on the next clone(CLONE_NEWNS).
>>>>>>>>>> I could go with that, but what about the trigger being
>>>>>>>>>> installing or updating the keyring? That's the only operation
>>>>>>>>>> that needs namespace separation, so on mount ns clone, you
>> get
>>>>>>>>>> a pointer to the old ima_ns until you do something that
>>>>>>>>>> requires a new key, which then triggers the copy of the
>> namespace
>>>> and installing it?
>>>>>>>>> It isn't just the keyrings that need to be namespaced, but the
>>>>>>>>> measurement list and policy as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMA-measurement, IMA-appraisal and IMA-audit are all policy
>>>> based.
>>>>>>>>> As soon as the namespace starts, measurements should be
>> added
>>>>>>>>> to the namespace specific measurement list, not it's parent.
>>>>>>> Shouldn't it be both?
>>>>>> The policy defines which files are measured. The namespace policy
>>>>>> could be different than it's parent's policy, and the parent's
>>>>>> policy could be different than the native policy. Basically, file
>>>>>> measurements need to be added to the namespace measurement
>> list,
>>>>>> recursively, up to the native measurement list.
>>>>> Yes, but if a task t1 is in namespace ns2 which is a child of
>>>>> namespace ns1, and it accesses a file which ns1's policy says must be
>>>>> measured, then will ns1's required measurement happen (and be
>>>> appended
>>>>> to the ns1 measurement list), whether or not ns2's policy requires it?
>>>> Yes, as the file needs to be measured only in the ns1 policy, the
>>>> measurement would exist in the ns1 measurement list, but not in the
>>>> ns2 measurement list. The pseudo code snippet below might help.
>>> This algorithm is potentially extending a PCR in TPM multiple times
>>> for a single file event under a given namespace and duplicating
>>> entries. Any concerns with performance and memory footprint?
>> Going forward we assume associated with each container will be a vTPM.
>> The namespace measurements will extend a vTPM. As the container comes
>> and goes the associated measurement list, keyring, and vTPM will come
>> and go as well. For this reason, based on policy, the same file
>> measurement might appear in multiple measurement lists.
> My concern is that the base of namespacing the measurement lists is on the
> integration of containers with vTPM. Associating vTPM with containers as
> they are today is not a simple integration since vTPM requires a VM and
> containers do not.

There's a vTPM proxy driver in the kernel that enables spawning a
frontend /dev/tpm%d and an anonymous backend file descriptor where a
vTPM can listen on for TPM commands. I integrated this with 'swtpm' and
I have been working on integrating this into runc. Currently each
container started with runc can get one (or multiple) vTPMs and
/dev/tpm0 [and /dev/tpmrm0 in case of TPM2] then appear inside the
container.

What is missing for integration with IMA namespacing are patches for:

1) IMA to use a tpm_chip to talk to rather than issue TPM commands with
TPM_ANY_NUM as parameter to TPM driver functions
2) an ioctl for the vtpm proxy driver to attach a vtpm proxy instance's
tpm_chip to an IMA namespace; this ioctl should be called after the
creation of the IMA namespace (by container mgmt. stack [runc])
3) - some way for the IMA namespace to release the vTPM proxy's
'tpm_chip' and other resources once the IMA namespace is deleted

I have these patches in some form and would post them at a later stage
of namespacing IMA.

swtpm: https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm
libtpms: https://github.com/stefanberger/libtpms
runc pull request: https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/pull/1082

Stefan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 19:50    [W:0.100 / U:11.696 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site