On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 11:35 +0100, Alban Crequy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 16:10 +0100, Alban Crequy wrote:
> >> From: Alban Crequy <alban@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> This patch forces files to be re-measured, re-appraised and re-audited
> >> on file systems with the feature flag FS_NO_IMA_CACHE. In that way,
> >> cached integrity results won't be used.
> >>
> >> For now, this patch adds the new flag only FUSE filesystems. This is
> >> needed because the userspace FUSE process can change the underlying
> >> files at any time.
> >
> > Thanks, it's working nicely.
> >
> >
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> >> index 511fbaabf624..2bd7e73ebc2a 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> >> @@ -2075,6 +2075,7 @@ struct file_system_type {
> >> #define FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA 2
> >> #define FS_HAS_SUBTYPE 4
> >> #define FS_USERNS_MOUNT 8 /* Can be mounted by userns root */
> >> +#define FS_NO_IMA_CACHE 16 /* Force IMA to re-measure, re-appraise, re-audit files */
> >> #define FS_RENAME_DOES_D_MOVE 32768 /* FS will handle d_move() during rename() internally. */
> >> struct dentry *(*mount) (struct file_system_type *, int,
> >> const char *, void *);
> >>
> >
> > Since IMA is going to need another flag, we probably should have a
> > consistent prefix (eg. "FS_IMA"). Maybe rename this flag to
> > FS_IMA_NO_CACHE.
>
> Ok, I can rename it.
>
> Is there a discussion about the other IMA flag?
There's not a single thread that I can point to, but more of an on
going discussion as to what it means for a filesystem to support IMA
and how that decision is made.
- Initial measuring, verifying, auditing files
- Safely detecting when a file changes
- Not applicable/supported
With Sascha Hauer's patch "ima: Use i_version only when filesystem
supports it" and this patch, the second issue is addressed, but will
cause files to be re-validated, perhaps unnecessarily, impacting
performance.
Some filesystems should not be evaluated, such as pseudo filesystems
(eg. cgroups, sysfs, devpts, pstorefs, efivarfs, debugfs, selinux,
smack). Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is
applicable/supported, we should define a new flag, indicating whether
it is a pseudo filesystem. This would eliminate a large portion of at
least the builtin IMA policy rules.
> > I'm also wondering if this change should be
> > separated from the IMA change.
>
> Do you mean one patch for adding the flag and the IMA change and
> another patch for using the flag in FUSE?
The flag and FUSE usage of the flag, separately from IMA.
Mimi
