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: 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