linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] libnvdimm/security: Tighten scope of nvdimm->busy vs security operations

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:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:22 -0400
From:   Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] libnvdimm/security: Tighten scope of nvdimm->busy vs security operations

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:49 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
>>
>> > The blanket blocking of all security operations while the DIMM is in
>> > active use in a region is too restrictive. The only security operations
>> > that need to be aware of the ->busy state are those that mutate the
>> > state of data, i.e. erase and overwrite.
>> >
>> > Refactor the ->busy checks to be applied at the entry common entry point
>> > in __security_store() rather than each of the helper routines.
>>
>> I'm not sure this buys you much.  Did you test this on actual hardware
>> to make sure your assumptions are correct?  I guess the worst case is we
>> get an "invalid security state" error back from the firmware....
>>
>> Still, what's the motivation for this?
>
> The motivation was when I went to test setting the frozen state and
> found that it complained about the DIMM being active. There's nothing
> wrong with freezing security while the DIMM is mapped. ...but then I
> somehow managed to write this generalized commit message that left out
> the explicit failure I was worried about. Yes, moved too fast, but the
> motivation is "allow freeze while active" and centralize the ->busy
> check so it's just one function to review that common constraint.

OK, thanks for the info.

Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>