[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <511B33BC.9080307@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:33:32 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Lock down MSR writing in secure boot
On 02/12/2013 10:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 22:12 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you are thinking of CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but I don't really see a
>> huge difference between MSRs and I/O control registers... just different
>> address spaces.
>
> Not having CAP_SYS_RAWIO blocks various SCSI commands, for instance.
> These might result in the ability to write individual blocks or destroy
> the device firmware, but do any of them permit modifying the running
> kernel?
That is just batshit crazy. If you have CAP_SYS_RAWIO you can do iopl()
which means you can reprogram your northbridge, at which point you most
definitely *can* modify the running kernel.
And some SCSI driver requires this??!
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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