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]
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:52:00 +0200
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	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] x86, x2apic: Only WARN on broken BIOSes inside a virtual
 guest

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:40:35AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> In commit "41750d3 x86, x2apic: Enable the bios request for x2apic optout"
> it was explained how OEMs are trying to opt out of using x2apics.
> 
> That commit moved code around and screamed with a WARN if the BIOS
> opted out of x2apic mode.  Fair enough.
> 
> This code hit our RHEL distro and OEMs started complaining that the
> WARN is scaring their customers and asked we tone it down to a
> pr_warn().
> 
> Before we did that, we thought we should change it upstream too.
> Upstream complained that WARN was necessary due to a serious
> security threat, namely irq injections.  Hard to argue that.
> 
> This left us between a rock and a hard place.  We toned down the
> WARN in RHEL to keep our customers happy.  But this leaves us with
> a perpetual patch in RHEL and possibly covering up a security threat.
> 
> I poked around to understand the nature of the security threat and why
> OEMs would want to leave themselves vulnerable.  The only security
> threat I could find was this whitepaper talking about Xen and irq
> injections:
> 
> http://www.invisiblethingslab.com/resources/2011/Software%20Attacks%20on%20Intel%20VT-d.pdf
> 
> After talking with folks, the threat of irq injections on virtual guests
> made sense.  However, when discussing if this was possible on bare metal
> machines, we could not come up with a plausible scenario.
> 
The irq injections is something that a guest with assigned device does
to attack a hypervisor it runs on. Interrupt remapping protects host
from this attack. According to pdf above if x2apic is disabled in a
hypervisor interrupt remapping can be bypassed and leave host vulnerable
to guest attack. This means that situation is exactly opposite: warning
has sense on a bare metal, but not in a guest. I am not sure that there is
a hypervisor that emulates interrupt remapping device though and without
it the warning cannot be triggered in a guest.

--
			Gleb.
--
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