[PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces
Eric W. Biederman
ebiederm at xmission.com
Fri Jul 14 12:04:19 UTC 2017
Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On 07/13/2017 08:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 07/13/2017 01:49 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>>> My big question right now is can you implement Ted's suggested
>>>> restriction. Only one security.foo or secuirty.foo at ... attribute ?
>>> We need to raw-list the xattrs and do the check before writing them. I am fairly sure this can be done.
>>>
>>> So now you want to allow security.foo and one security.foo at uid=<> or just a single one security.foo(@[[:print:]]*)?
>>>
>> The latter.
>
> That case would prevent a container user from overriding the xattr on
> the host. Is that what we want?
Most definitely. If a more privileged use has set secure.capable that
is better.
> For limiting the number of xattrs and
> getting that functionality (override IMA signature for example) the
> former seems better...
I don't know about IMA. But my feeling is that we will only be dealing
with a single signing key, so I don't see how having multiple IMA xattrs
make sense. Could you explain that to me?
> For the former I now have the topmost patch here:
> https://github.com/stefanberger/linux/commits/xattr_for_userns.v3
Thank you.
Eric
--
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
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list