linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] Intel EPT-Based Sub-page Write Protection Support.

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: <96efaece-306c-cde3-06d6-553505612136@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:35:12 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] Intel EPT-Based Sub-page Write Protection
 Support.

On 16/10/2017 02:08, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> And the introspection facility by Mihai uses a completely
>> different API for the introspector, based on sockets rather than ioctls.
>> So I'm not sure this is the right API at all.
>
> Currently,  We only block the write access, As far as I know an example,
> we now using it in a security daemon:

Understood.  However, I think QEMU is the wrong place to set this up.

If the kernel wants to protect _itself_, it should use a hypercall.  If
an introspector appliance wants to protect the guest kernel, it should
use the socket that connects it to the hypervisor.

Paolo

> Consider It has a server which launching in the host user-space, and a
> client launching in the guest kernel. Yes, they are communicate with
> sockets. The guest kernel wanna protect a special area to prevent all
> the process including the kernel itself modify this area. the client
> could send the guest physical address via the security socket to server
> side, and server would update these protection into KVM. Thus, all the
> write access in a guest specific area will be blocked.
> 
> Now the implementation only on the second half(maybe third ^_^) of this
> example: 'How kvm set the write-protect into a specific GFN?'
> 
> Maybe a user space tools which use ioctl let kvm mmu update the
> write-protection is a better choice.
>