On 11/08/2014 08:31 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 11/7/2014 10:54 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >> On 11/07/2014 10:21 AM, David Howells wrote: >>> Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>>>> What does this mean? >>>>> It has been decided that for the purposes of docker, all files within the >>>>> docker root fs will have the same label. We'd have to provide policy >>>>> namespacing otherwise (I think). >>>> That's just insane. "It has been decided" by who? Obviously not people >>>> who care about security policies. Maybe it's good enough for your >>>> particular use case, but labeling of files has to be up to the security >>>> module. That's what the modules are for. >>> It has been decided by the docker people that I've dealt with. I was >>> expecting there to be different labels throughout a docker image, but >>> apparently not... >> We want the equivalent of the mount option >> context="system_u:object_r:svirt_sandbox_file_t:s0:c1,c2" > Which just means that the policy used in the container is going > to have to grant access to everything running in that container > to that context. That's fine if you want to emasculate your module > within the container. But it requires that you do so, and that is > wrong. Huh? I am asking for this to be supported not enforced. If you don't do the command context="" or its equivalent, then you can run with ever labels you want and see the underlying XATTRS on inodes. I just need a way to support sVirt controls as defined for docker containers, matching what we are able to do with Device Mapper back end. >> Which would label all of the content in the OVERLAYFS with this label. >> If we have to have a readonly label for the lower >> level and a RW Label for the context mount then that is fine with us. >> The lower level can actually just reveal the label of the INODE. >> We can take care of labeling it with a single label. >> >> If the context="LABEL" (Or its equivalent is not passed), it should get >> some kind of label based on the parent directory I would guess >> or transition rules. >> >> With docker we want to treat all contents of a container with a single >> label and then separate containers based on MCS(Svirt) separation. > That seems like a limited and rather pointless use case to me. >>>>>> What about LSMs that have multiple labels on a file? >>>>> Setting policy is something I'll have to leave to the docker people and the >>>>> administrators of systems that use docker. >>>> What does that mean? If the underlying mechanism can't do the job, >>>> how the dickens is the administrator supposed to make it happen? >>> I'm trying to make the kernel able to support a policy on this at all - not >>> actually write the policy itself. The policy may well vary depending on the >>> installation anyway. >>> >>>>> But all I'm proposing is a way to give the LSM access to both the file in >>>>> the overlay and the file in the lower fs that is leeching through into the >>>>> overlay. >>>> But your mechanisms are simultaneously incomplete and over specified. >>> Well then, specify better ones! I'm fairly certain it is incomplete and I'm >>> *trying* to get input on how it may be improved. I should've marked the >>> patches [RFC] but it didn't occur to me until just after I'd sent them (of >>> course). > I'd love to do so, but I'm frying too many kittens right now > to put the effort required into making this right. I do have > faith that this can be worked out. Sorry that I missed the implicit > [RFC]. It helps to know that feedback is still open. > >>> Anyway, there are a number of things one has to take account of: >>> >>> (1) There may be multiple 'views' or instances of a file in a union - and >>> each may be labelled differently. >>> >>> (2) The lower file may have xattrs attached to it that represent the security >>> policy. >>> >>> (3) The union file may have xattrs attached to it that represent the security >>> policy. >>> >>> (4) When copying the lower file up, the xattrs representing the security >>> attributes of the lower file must not be written as they may incorrectly >>> overwrite the security attributes of the union file. >>> >>> (5) There needs to be a way to set the security attributes on the union file. >>> >>> (6) When setting the attributes on the union file, the LSM might need to take >>> account of the attributes of the lower file in their derivation. >>> >>> (7) There may be no inode in the union layer on which to hang the attributes >>> for the upper file. >>> >>> (8) struct file::f_security should be used to contain the union layer >>> labellage on open files that point to a lower layer. >>> >>> (9) Ideally, file->f_path would point to the union layer and file->f_inode to >>> the lower layer when there is no upper file. However, this is not the >>> case at the moment. The file struct *only* points to the lower file or >>> the upper file and never both. >>> >>> (10) Overlayfs has an extra complication in that there are potentially three >>> files involved in any union. The lower file that is the source, the >>> upper file that where the copy-up goes and the virtual union file in the >>> overlay fs that redirects to one or the other. >>> >>> I've taken the approach that we assume that the upper file (if it exists) >>> has the same labellage as the union file. >>> >>>> Your proposal is a cop out. It may work in a limited set of cases. >>>> It is not a general solution. >>> Actually, I think the actual code interface I've proposed is pretty close to >>> being a general solution. I've given the LSM the information I have, it can >>> implement a fabulous maze of specially crafted labels if it wants to - and >>> even have multiple labels per inode or per file. The VFS does not care. >>> >>> David >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Selinux mailing list >>> Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. >>> To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. > _______________________________________________ > Selinux mailing list > Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. > To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
