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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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 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. James _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
