linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC v2] Introduce the in-kernel hibernation encryption

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: <1532436474.17797.20.camel@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:47:54 +0200
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>, Theodore Ts o <tytso@....edu>,
        Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
        Denis Kenzior <denkenz@...il.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Gu, Kookoo" <kookoo.gu@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC v2] Introduce the in-kernel hibernation
 encryption

On Di, 2018-07-24 at 14:01 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > >        "There have some functions be locked-down because
> > > > >        there have no appropriate mechanisms to check the
> > > > >        integrity of writing data."
> > > > >        https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10476751/
> > > > 
> > > > So your goal is to make hibernation compatible with kernel
> > > > lockdown? Do your patches provide sufficient security that hibernation
> > > > can be enabled with kernel lockdown?
> > > 
> > > OK, maybe I am dense, but if the key comes from user space, will that
> > > be enough?
> > > 
> > 
> > Good point, we once tried to generate key in kernel, but people
> > suggest to generate key in userspace and provide it to the
> > kernel, which is what ecryptfs do currently, so it seems this
> > should also be safe for encryption in kernel.
> 
> Safe against what kind of attack? Please describe what kind of
> security you are trying to provide.

Unsigned code must not take over the priviledge level of signed code.
Hence:

1. Unsigned code must not allowed to read sensitive parts of signed
code's memory space

2. Unsigned code must not be able to alter the memory space of
signed code -> snapshots that are changed must not be able to be
resumed

> I don't think generating key in userspace is good enough for providing
> guarantees for secure-boot.

Why?

	Regards
		Oliver