First KEP version for review

keps/sig-node/3702-ima-namespace-support/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,264 @@
+# KEP-3702: IMA namespace support inside containers
+
+- [KEP-XXXXX: IMA namespace support inside containers](#kep-xxxxx-ima-namespace-support-inside-containers)
+ - [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+ - [Summary](#summary)
+ - [Motivation](#motivation)
+ - [Goals](#goals)
+ - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+ - [Proposal](#proposal)
+ - [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional)
+ - [Story 1](#story-1)
+ - [Story 2](#story-2)
+ - [Story 3](#story-3)
+ - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
+ - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+ - [Design Details](#design-details)
+ - [Linux kernel](#linux-kernel)
+ - [Runtime specification](#runtime-specification)
+ - [CRI API](#cri-api)
+ - [Kubernetes pod resource](#kubernetes-pod-resource)
+ - [Monitoring and alerting](#monitoring-and-alerting)
+ - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+ - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+ - [GA](#ga)
+ - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+ - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+ - [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+ - [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+ - [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+ - [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+ - [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+
+## Summary
+
+IMA namespaces allow to check the file integrity. This proposal adds regular file integrity inside containers deployed in kubernetes.
+
+
+## Motivation
+
+File integrity is a way to improve security in systems allowing to:
+
+* Detect illicit activity
+* Detect unintended changes
+* Verify the status and health of the system
+* Comply with access rules
+
+This can be achieved using IMA (Integrity Measurement Architecture) and EVM (Extended Verification Module), which can use a TPM chip as Hardware Root of Trust for high security environments.
+
+### Goals
+
+* Check integrity of regular files inside containers, and hence check POD integrity
+* Using remote attestation mechanism, check the integrity of a given POD or all PODS in the cluster deployed with IMA namespace enabled periodically
+* Alert about corrupted or compromised pods
+
+### Non-Goals
+.
+
+
+## Proposal
+<!-- We propose to enable IMA linux namespaces in pods.
+Since IMA namespaces can be created when a container is launched, we can provide transparent integrity verification on any linux container.
+IMA and EVM can use a TPM chip as a hardware root of trust. Hence we can verify images against a set of golden hash values, as well as avoiding any further changes to the overlayfs to intercept calls and check the integrity of files. -->
+
+### User Stories (Optional)
+
+#### Story 1
+As a cluster admin, I want to detect undesired file changes, so that I can take out pods that have been compromised.
+
+An intruder perform some malicious changes inside a certain pod's files. The system should be able to detect those changed and alert about the inconsistent pod. The remote attestation framework could keep this pod running or make a copy (for forensic analysis) and delete it.
+
+#### Story 2
+As a cluster admin, I want to deploy a only proven and certified pods, so that I can comply with internal policies as well as security regulations.
+
+Let's say that we are working in a high security environment where only approved images can be deployed. In this scenario we can make sure that the pod deploy used an imaged that hasn't been tampered.
+
+#### Story 3
+As a cluster admin, I want to deny access to certain files inside the pod, so that a potential intruder can't access sensitive information.
+
+In some cases, we should not even allow root to modify certain files inside the container.
+
+### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)
+We need to enable IMA in the kernel and container runtimes (runC, CRI-O, docker, containerd, etc.). 
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+
+
+## Design Details
+
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+
+In order for the this feature to work, the nodes where the pods will be deploy should have IMA enabled and a recent kernel that supports IMA namespaces (WIP, it should be merged soon). The nodes should also have a TPM chip. We could use nodAffinity of labels and annotations in nodes in order to select where to deploy the pods.
+
+The linux kernel IMA namespace support is based on user namespaces. Therefore, the container runtime should first create a user namespace and then create an IMA namespaces. In order to use IMA namespaces it is necessary to enable user namespaces as well.
+
+Should we enable IMA namespaces by default when enabling user namespaces?
+
+### Linux kernel
+
+IMA is only available in Linux hosts and Linux containers. Unfortunately, IMA is not a separate namespace, which is needed in order to isolate it and be used inside containers. Upcoming kernel patches should add support for IMA namespaces.
+
+
+### Runtime specification
+
+There is an ongoing discussion regarding the runtime changes.
+
+https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/1164
+
+
+### CRI API
+
+We propose to add the following message.
+
+
+
+```protobuf
+
+message LinuxSandboxSecurityContext {
+ NamespaceOption namespace_options = 1;
+ SELinuxOption selinux_options = 2;
+ Int64Value run_as_user = 3;
+ Int64Value run_as_group = 8;
+ bool readonly_rootfs = 4;
+ repeated int64 supplemental_groups = 5;
+ bool privileged = 6;
+ SecurityProfile seccomp = 9;
+ SecurityProfile apparmor = 10;
+ string seccomp_profile_path = 7 [deprecated=true];
+ // new field
+ bool ima = 11;
+}
+
+```
+### Kubernetes pod resource
+We propose the following change in the podTemplate to enable IMA namespaces.
+
+```yaml
+apiVersion: v1
+kind: Pod
+metadata:
+ name: nginx
+spec:
+ securityContext:
+ # New field
+
+ ima: true
+ containers:
+ - name: nginx
+ image: nginx:1.14.2
+ ports:
+ - containerPort: 80
+```
+
+The item pod.spec.ima.policy will automatically enable IMA for all the container in the pod with a given policy. Since all containers in a pod share the same namespaces, we need to have this policy in advance when creating the pod and its infrastructure container.
+
+
+### Monitoring and alerting
+
+This features will integrate with a future remote attestation procedure, which will monitor pods and in case of a violation take some actions like pod revocation, alerting, etc.
+
+### Test Plan
+
+
+
+Which unit tests should we include?
+
+
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+
+#### GA
+
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+
+
+Not applicable because this is a policy KEP.
+
+
+
+## Implementation History
+
+<!--
+Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
+Major milestones might include:
+- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
+- the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design
+- the date implementation started
+- the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
+- the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
+- when the KEP was retired or superseded
+-->
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+<!--
+Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
+SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
+-->

out

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABAQDSghO9XxHwLdURMMMGFJC/Ew24rbqHyejKOuTDXI4knRZwLY6ckl01Ixp39/3m4LEeuh7Qpl/HjvkwETyrUUNoEGKP8+I9xapOzRyCJaG2SpU1KMsb6FhdTOCCZeSfoA2fofxArhabrn4IXfKo8rS356DgZnDZjo46+cV5fbkZtzgAa4wiEOcCyxDMuEo7wkP6BITTgOuQgqitSNZRckRoUonxV9rVpQ+PdIyW3QRw+WLyYqahoNwIEJWQnhT/DyhzKjyxG7fVWJWiaQN4j42Ly9CdKhzJ8k68UZUVjm06kPNoGB1M1KsltVOF4C+o1JCXQKKYVWeEvcQafvocijgx root@mscphis01197