linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen/privcmd: Add IOCTL_PRIVCMD_DM

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: <fa41f70e-d98c-dda7-cc7b-1152c438d4e5@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:50:06 -0500
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>,
        "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen/privcmd: Add IOCTL_PRIVCMD_DM_OP



On 02/09/2017 09:27 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Durrant [mailto:paul.durrant@...rix.com]
>> Sent: 09 February 2017 14:18
>> To: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>; Boris Ostrovsky
>> <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>; Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] xen/privcmd: Add IOCTL_PRIVCMD_DM_OP
>>
>> Recently a new dm_op[1] hypercall was added to Xen to provide a
>> mechanism
>> for restricting device emulators (such as QEMU) to a limited set of
>> hypervisor operations, and being able to audit those operations in the
>> kernel of the domain in which they run.
>>
>> This patch adds IOCTL_PRIVCMD_DM_OP as gateway for
>> __HYPERVISOR_dm_op,
>> bouncing the callers buffers through kernel memory to allow the address
>> ranges to be audited (and negating the need to bounce through locked
>> memory in user-space).
>
> Actually, it strikes me (now that I've posted the patch) that I should probably just mlock the user buffers rather than bouncing them through kernel... Anyway, I'd still appreciate review on other aspects of the patch.


Are you suggesting that the caller (user) mlocks the buffers?

-boris