On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 11:17 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 08:52 +0100, Stef Bon wrote: > >> I do not have any comments about the patches but a question. > >> I completely agree that the files can change without the VFS knowing > >> about it, but isn't that in general the case with filesystems with a > >> backend shared with others (network fs's?). > > > > Right, the problem is not limited to fuse, but needs to be addressed > > before unprivileged fuse mounts are upstreamed. > > > > Alban's response to this question: > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151784020321045&w=2 > > Which goes to why it is a flag that get's set. > > All of this just needs a follow-up patch to update every filesystem > that does not meet ima's requirements. Currently files on remote filesystems are measured/appraised/audited once. With the new flags, our options would be to either fail the signature verification or constantly re-measure/re-appraise files on remote file systems. Neither option seems like the right solution. There's some very initial discussions on how to support file integrity on remote filesystems. Chuck Lever has some thoughts on piggy-backing on the fs-verity work being done. From a very, very high level, IMA- appraisal would verify the file signature, but leave the integrity enforcement to the vfs/fs layer. By integrating fs-verity or similar proposal with IMA, measurements would be included in the measurement list and keys used for file signature verification would use the same existing IMA-appraisal infrastructure. > Mimi I believe you said that the requirement is that all file changes > can be detected through the final __fput of a file that calls > ima_file_free. Right, like for fuse, I don't believe this existing hook works for remote filesystems. Mimi
