linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] sysfs/cpu: Add "Unknown" vulnerability state

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]

Date:   Thu, 3 Jan 2019 10:46:53 -0600
From:   Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        mlangsdo@...hat.com,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        suzuki.poulose@....com, marc.zyngier@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        julien.thierry@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, steven.price@....com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        ykaukab@...e.de, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        shankerd@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] sysfs/cpu: Add "Unknown" vulnerability state

Hi,

On 01/03/2019 10:37 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:49:15PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> There is a lot of variation in the Arm ecosystem. Because of this,
>> there exist possible cases where the kernel cannot authoritatively
>> determine if a machine is vulnerable.
>>
>> Rather than guess the vulnerability status in cases where
>> the mitigation is disabled or the firmware isn't responding
>> correctly, we need to display an "Unknown" state.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
>> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>> index 9605dbd4b5b5..876103fddfa4 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>> @@ -495,6 +495,7 @@ Description:	Information about CPU vulnerabilities
>>   		"Not affected"	  CPU is not affected by the vulnerability
>>   		"Vulnerable"	  CPU is affected and no mitigation in effect
>>   		"Mitigation: $M"  CPU is affected and mitigation $M is in effect
>> +		"Unknown"    	  The kernel is unable to make a determination
> 
> Do some of the "Unknown" cases arise from the vulnerability detection
> code being compiled out of the kernel?
>

Yes,

> I wonder whether at least the detection support should be mandatory.
> sysfs is not very useful as a standard vulnerability reporting interface
> unless we make best efforts to always populate it with real information. >
> 
> Also, does "Unknown" convey anything beyond what is indicated by the
> sysfs entry being omitted altogether?

I'm not sure about this one. I tend to think the "unknown" case 
encourages users that really want an answer to dig deeper and call their 
hardware/os/whoever to get an answer. I would tend to think that if the 
entry is missing it would tend to encourage the behavior that Greg KH 
mentions where the user assumes "hey the system doesn't have a sysfs 
entry for $VUNLERABILITY, that probably means that its not possible on 
the architecture".