Quoting Stefan Berger (stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On 07/14/2017 09:34 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >Quoting Stefan Berger (stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > >>On 07/13/2017 08:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>>Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@... 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@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? For limiting the number of xattrs > >Not really. If the file is owned by a uid mapped into the container, > >then the container root can chown the file which will clear the file > >capability, after which he can set a new one. If the file is not > >owned by a uid mapped into the container, then container root could > >not set a filecap anyway. > > Let's say I installed a container where all files are signed and > thus have security.ima. Now for some reason I want to re-sign some > or all files inside that container. How would I do that ? Would I > need to get rid of security.ima first, possibly by copying each > file, deleting the original file, and renaming the copied file to > the original name, or should I just be able to write out a new > signature, thus creating security.ima@uid=1000 besides the > security.ima ? > > Stefan Hi Mimi, what do you think makes most sense for IMA? -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
