Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:41:41 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 17/17] ima: Setup securityfs for IMA namespace | From | Stefan Berger <> |
| |
On 12/15/21 16:31, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Hi Stefan, James, > > On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 14:47 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >> Setup securityfs with symlinks, directories, and files for IMA >> namespacing support. The same directory structure that IMA uses on the >> host is also created for the namespacing case. >> >> The securityfs file and directory ownerships cannot be set when the >> IMA namespace is initialized. Therefore, delay the setup of the file >> system to a later point when securityfs is in securityfs_fill_super. >> >> This filesystem can now be mounted as follows: >> >> mount -t securityfs /sys/kernel/security/ /sys/kernel/security/ >> >> The following directories, symlinks, and files are then available. >> >> $ ls -l sys/kernel/security/ >> total 0 >> lr--r--r--. 1 root root 0 Dec 2 00:18 ima -> integrity/ima >> drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 0 Dec 2 00:18 integrity > The ima symlink was introduced for backwards compatibilty. Refer to > commit 0c343af8065b ("integrity: Add an integrity directory in > securityfs"). The symlink shouldn't need to be supported in IMA > namespace.
That's backwards compatibility for applications and scripts. If we want to have these running unmodified inside IMA namespaces I think it's better to keep the symbolic link and not treat the IMA namespaces any different than the host.
Stefan
> > thanks, > > Mimi > >> $ ls -l sys/kernel/security/ima/ >> total 0 >> -r--r-----. 1 root root 0 Dec 2 00:18 ascii_runtime_measurements >> -r--r-----. 1 root root 0 Dec 2 00:18 binary_runtime_measurements >> -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Dec 2 00:18 policy >> -r--r-----. 1 root root 0 Dec 2 00:18 runtime_measurements_count >> -r--r-----. 1 root root 0 Dec 2 00:18 violations >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> >> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
| |