[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171206183734.xmgecyrd5suiurm6@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:37:34 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Gary Lin <glin@...e.com>
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Joey Lee <jlee@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 0/2] Introduce Security Version to EFI Stub
* Gary Lin <glin@...e.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:14:26PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Gary Lin <glin@...e.com> wrote:
> > > The series of patches introduce Security Version to EFI stub.
> > >
> > > Security Version is a monotonically increasing number and designed to
> > > prevent the user from loading an insecure kernel accidentally. The
> > > bootloader maintains a list of security versions corresponding to
> > > different distributions. After fixing a critical vulnerability, the
> > > distribution kernel maintainer bumps the "version", and the bootloader
> > > updates the list automatically. When the user tries to load a kernel
> > > with a lower security version, the bootloader shows a warning prompt
> > > to notify the user the potential risk.
> >
> > If a distribution releases a kernel with a higher security version and
> > that it automatically updated on boot, what happens if that kernel
> > contains a different bug that causes it to fail to boot or break
> > critical functionality? At that point, the user's machine would be in
> > a state where the higher security version is enforced but the only
> > kernel that provides that is broken. Wouldn't that make a bad
> > situation even worse by now requiring manual acceptance of the older
> > SV kernel boot physically at the machine?
> >
> > I feel like I'm missing a detail here or something.
> >
> If the new kernel fails to boot, then the user has to choose the kernel
> manually anyway, and there will be an option in the warning prompt to
> lower SV.
And what if the firmware does not support a lowering of the SV?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists