linux-kernel - RE: RFC: WMI Enhancements

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: <eb9aba888e854c1b92911ba2e94975b2@ausx13mpc120.AMER.DELL.COM>
Date:   Mon, 8 May 2017 16:00:52 +0000
From:   <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>
To:     <dvhart@...radead.org>
CC:     <luto@...nel.org>, <pali.rohar@...il.com>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        <len.brown@...el.com>, <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: RFC: WMI Enhancements

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@...radead.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 10:47 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
> Cc: luto@...nel.org; pali.rohar@...il.com; rjw@...ysocki.net;
> len.brown@...el.com; corentin.chary@...il.com;
> andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; platform-
> driver-x86@...r.kernel.org; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements
> 
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:36:31PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@...radead.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 10:29 AM
> > > To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>; Pali Rohár
> > > <pali.rohar@...il.com>; Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>; Len Brown
> > > <len.brown@...el.com>; Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>; Andy
> > > Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > > platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 06:25:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM,  <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com> wrote:
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@...radead.org]
> > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 6:45 PM
> > > > >> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
> > > > >> Cc: pali.rohar@...il.com; rjw@...ysocki.net; luto@...capital.net;
> > > > >> len.brown@...el.com; corentin.chary@...il.com; luto@...nel.org;
> > > > >> andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> platform-
> > > > >> driver-x86@...r.kernel.org; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> > > > >> Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I meant that to say that at least for now Andy's wmi-mof driver should still
> be
> > > merged.
> > > > > If something is going to build on top of this to do WBEM tools, they'll need
> that
> > > MOF
> > > > > data once someone figures out how to nicely deconstruct it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The thing I don't like about my own driver is that, as a WMI device
> > > > driver, it can be loaded before the rest of the bus finishes probing.
> > > > So user programs that are notified asynchronously that the wmi-mof
> > > > driver is loaded and try to use future functionality (ioctl to issue a
> > > > MOF-based method call?) might end up doing so before the rest of the
> > > > bus is probed.
> > > >
> > > > This could be addressed by always exposing the wmi-mof device last
> > > > (sort of -- it can be a module) or perhaps by moving MOF functionality
> > > > to the core driver.  Or maybe it's not really a problem.
> > >
> > > Thanks Andy, I'll keep that in mind and see if I can come up with something to
> > > address it while working on WMI this week.
> > >
> > > The other problem with wmi-mof is that there will be no immediate open
> source
> > > consumers of the interface, and none on the horizon. We can't even test it to
> > > any meaningful degree on Linux. I suspect this will be met with stiff
> > > resistance.
> >
> > Well FWIW I did a quick PoC check with the binary that I got out of it to make
> > sure it matched what was supposed to be.  I brought it over to a Win10 box and
> > decompiled using the mofcmp tool and those crazy arguments I mentioned and
> > it was correct.
> >
> > I'd argue that even if there is no open source tools available today, not making
> > the data available to userspace makes it difficult to even attempt to start
> > to reverse engineer.
> >
> > Kernel config with default of "N" perhaps for wmi-mof?
> 
> All true. There is a precedent we're working against on this. I'll include it in
> my leveling-up thread today or tomorrow.
> 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, isn't there a way to ask Microsoft to document this?  Are you
> > > > supposed to "ask a question" on this forum, perhaps:
> > > >
> > > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134029.aspx
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing the Samba team knows how to do this, too.
> > > >
> >
> > Microsoft treats this as an "intermediary" format.  I'm not convinced
> > that anyone other than MS knows anything about it today.
> >
> > I agree asking them to document it is probably the right way to go.
> >
> 
> Mario, you are most likely in a better position to do that than I am. Would you
> take that on?
> 

Sure, I've made a request in that forum here:
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/cc3e50d6-c71d-4ce7-b765-6191f1788697/binary-mof-format?forum=os_specifications

I'll keep you apprise if there is any further details provided by MS.

Thanks,