On Wed, 2022-02-23 at 11:37 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 2/23/22 10:38, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-02-01 at 15:37 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > >> Limit the number of policy rules one can set in non-init_ima_ns to a > >> hardcoded 1024 rules. If the user attempts to exceed this limit by > >> setting too many additional rules, emit an audit message with the cause > >> 'too-many-rules' and simply ignore the newly added rules. > > This paragraph describes 'what' you're doing, not 'why'. Please prefix > > this paragraph with a short, probably one sentence, reason for the > > change. > >> Switch the accounting for the memory allocated for IMA policy rules to > >> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT so that cgroups kernel memory accounting takes effect. > > Does this change affect the existing IMA policy rules for init_ima_ns? > > There's typically no cgroup for the int_ima_ns, so not effect on > init_ima_ns. > > Here's the updated text: > > Limit the number of policy rules one can set in non-init_ima_ns to a > hardcoded 1024 rules to restrict the amount of memory used for IMA's > policy. The question is "why" there should be a difference between the init_ima_ns and non-init_ima_ns cases. Perhaps something like, "Only host root with CAP_SYS_ADMIN may write init_ima_ns policy rules, but in the non-init_ima_ns case root in the namespace with CAP_MAC_ADMIN privileges may write IMA policy rules. Limit the total number of IMA policy rules per namespace." > Ignore the added rules if the user attempts to exceed this > limit by setting too many additional rules. > > Switch the accounting for the memory allocated for IMA policy rules to > GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT so that cgroups kernel memory accounting takes effect. > This switch has no effect on the init_ima_ns. thanks, Mimi
