linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/setup] x86, setup: "glove box" BIOS calls -- infrastructure

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090413042459.GA6479@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:24:59 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	hpa@...ux.intel.com, rjw@...k.pl, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/setup] x86, setup: "glove box" BIOS calls --
	infrastructure


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> Sure, go ahead and wrap them in some kind of "save and restore all  
> >>> registers" wrapping, but nothing fancier than that. It would just be 
> >>> overkill, and likely to break more than it fixes.
> >>>     
> >>
> >> Yeah. I only brought up the virtualization thing as a 
> >> hypothetical: "if" corrupting the main OS ever became a 
> >> widespread problem. Then i made the argument that this is 
> >> unlikely to happen, because Windows will be affected by it just 
> >> as much. (while register state corruptions might go unnoticed 
> >> much more easily, just via the random call-environment clobbering 
> >> of registers by Windows itself.)
> >>
> >> The only case where i could see virtualization to be useful is 
> >> the low memory RAM corruption pattern that some people have 
> >> observed.
> >
> > You could easily check that by checksumming pages (or actually 
> > copying them to high memory) before the call, and verifying after 
> > the call.
> 
> Yes, we could do memory checks, and ... hey, we already do that:
> 
>    bb577f9: x86: add periodic corruption check
>    5394f80: x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption
> 
> ... and i seem to be the one who implemented it! ;-)

s/implemented/merged+fixed :-)

	Ingo
--
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/