| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:19:28 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_irq_remapping: Clean up x2apic optout security
warning mess
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Alex Williamson
<alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 14:57 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Current kernels print this on my Dell server:
>>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: at drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c:542
>> intel_enable_irq_remapping+0x7b/0x27e()
>> Hardware name: PowerEdge R620
>> Your BIOS is broken and requested that x2apic be disabled
>> This will leave your machine vulnerable to irq-injection attacks
>> Use 'intremap=no_x2apic_optout' to override BIOS request
>> [...]
>> Enabled IRQ remapping in xapic mode
>> x2apic not enabled, IRQ remapping is in xapic mode
>>
>> This is inconsistent with itself -- interrupt remapping is *on*.
>>
>> Fix the mess by making the warnings say what they mean and my making
>> sure that compatibility format interrupts (the dangerous ones) are
>> disabled if x2apic is present regardless of BIOS settings.
>>
>> With this patch applied, the output is:
>>
>> Your BIOS is broken and requested that x2apic be disabled.
>> This will slightly decrease performance.
>> Use 'intremap=no_x2apic_optout' to override BIOS request.
>> Enabled IRQ remapping in xapic mode
>> x2apic not enabled, IRQ remapping is in xapic mode
>>
>> This should make us as or more secure than we are now and replace
>> a rather scary warning with a much less scary warning on silly
>> but functional systems.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c b/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c
>> index af8904d..eca8832 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c
>> @@ -425,11 +425,22 @@ static void iommu_set_irq_remapping(struct intel_iommu *iommu, int mode)
>>
>> /* Enable interrupt-remapping */
>> iommu->gcmd |= DMA_GCMD_IRE;
>> + iommu->gcmd &= ~DMA_GCMD_CFI; /* Block compatibility-format MSIs */
>> writel(iommu->gcmd, iommu->reg + DMAR_GCMD_REG);
>>
>> IOMMU_WAIT_OP(iommu, DMAR_GSTS_REG,
>> readl, (sts & DMA_GSTS_IRES), sts);
>>
>> + /*
>> + * With CFI clear in the Global Command register, we should be
>> + * protected from dangerous (i.e. compatibility) interrupts
>> + * regardless of x2apic status. Check just to be sure.
>> + */
>> + if (sts & DMA_GSTS_CFIS)
>> + WARN(1, KERN_WARNING
>> + "Compatibility-format IRQs enabled despite intr remapping;\n"
>> + "you are vulnerable to IRQ injection.\n");
>> +
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -526,20 +537,24 @@ static int __init intel_irq_remapping_supported(void)
>> static int __init intel_enable_irq_remapping(void)
>> {
>> struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd;
>> + bool x2apic_present;
>> int setup = 0;
>> int eim = 0;
>>
>> + x2apic_present = x2apic_supported();
>> +
>> if (parse_ioapics_under_ir() != 1) {
>> printk(KERN_INFO "Not enable interrupt remapping\n");
>> - return -1;
>> + goto error;
>> }
>>
>> - if (x2apic_supported()) {
>> + if (x2apic_present) {
>> eim = !dmar_x2apic_optout();
>> - WARN(!eim, KERN_WARNING
>> - "Your BIOS is broken and requested that x2apic be disabled\n"
>> - "This will leave your machine vulnerable to irq-injection attacks\n"
>> - "Use 'intremap=no_x2apic_optout' to override BIOS request\n");
>> + if (!eim)
>> + printk(KERN_WARNING
>> + "Your BIOS is broken and requested that x2apic be disabled.\n"
>> + "This will slightly decrease performance.\n"
>> + "Use 'intremap=no_x2apic_optout' to override BIOS request.\n");
>> }
>>
>> for_each_drhd_unit(drhd) {
>> @@ -578,7 +593,7 @@ static int __init intel_enable_irq_remapping(void)
>> if (eim && !ecap_eim_support(iommu->ecap)) {
>> printk(KERN_INFO "DRHD %Lx: EIM not supported by DRHD, "
>> " ecap %Lx\n", drhd->reg_base_addr, iommu->ecap);
>> - return -1;
>> + goto error;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -594,7 +609,7 @@ static int __init intel_enable_irq_remapping(void)
>> printk(KERN_ERR "DRHD %Lx: failed to enable queued, "
>> " invalidation, ecap %Lx, ret %d\n",
>> drhd->reg_base_addr, iommu->ecap, ret);
>> - return -1;
>> + goto error;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -625,6 +640,11 @@ error:
>> /*
>> * handle error condition gracefully here!
>> */
>> +
>> + if (x2apic_present)
>> + WARN(1, KERN_WARNING
>> + "Failed to enable irq remapping. You are vulnerable to irq-injection attacks.\n");
>
> How so? Without interrupt remapping, neither KVM assignment or vfio
> work unless the user explicitly opts-in to insecure interrupts via
> module options. Are there other attack vectors? Also, I really like
> the code above that forces CFI clear, but I don't think that warning is
> correct yet. According to the paper the vulnerability is enabled if
> both x2apic is not enabled and CFI is enabled. When x2apic is enabled,
> does it matter if CFI is enabled? My understand is no. Should a
> warning only occur if the interrupt remapper is enabled and x2apic is
> not enabled and we're not able to clear CFI? Thanks,
That's x2apic *present*, not enabled. The idea is that, on a system
that has x2apic (which AFAIK is the same set of systems that support
interrupt remapping), then you expect interrupt remapping to work,
whether in x2apic mode or xapic mode. This warning should never
trigger on any hardware I know of (which, admittedly, doesn't mean
much).
I have no objection to rewording the warning, if you have any better
ideas. I guess the vfio code (and hence the kvm code?) is more
careful than I realized.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists