Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 07/13/2017 08:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:Most definitely. If a more privileged use has set secure.capable that
Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:That case would prevent a container user from overriding the xattr on
On 07/13/2017 01:49 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:The latter.
My big question right now is can you implement Ted's suggestedWe need to raw-list the xattrs and do the check before writing them. I am fairly sure this can be done.
restriction. Only one security.foo or secuirty.foo@... attribute ?
So now you want to allow security.foo and one security.foo@uid=<> or just a single one security.foo(@[[:print:]]*)?
the host. Is that what we want?
is better.
For limiting the number of xattrs andI don't know about IMA. But my feeling is that we will only be dealing
getting that functionality (override IMA signature for example) the
former seems better...
with a single signing key, so I don't see how having multiple IMA xattrs
make sense. Could you explain that to me?
For the former I now have the topmost patch here:Thank you.
https://github.com/stefanberger/linux/commits/xattr_for_userns.v3
Eric