[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACdnJuu9sqzUWjPJRPOY6pKDJxTqwwf6NQEWQewXtufPQHikOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:59:47 -0700
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, leif@...iainc.com,
eric.snowberg@...cle.com, piotr.krol@...eb.com,
krystian.hebel@...eb.com, michal.zygowski@...eb.com,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] x86: Trenchboot secure late launch Linux kernel support
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:52 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:28 PM Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com> wrote:
> > https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG_PlatformResetAttackMitigationSpecification_1.10_published.pdf
> > - you want to protect in-memory secrets from a physically present
> > attacker hitting the reset button, booting something else and just
> > dumping RAM. This is avoided by setting a variable at boot time (in
> > the boot stub), and then clearing it on reboot once the secrets have
> > been cleared from RAM. If the variable isn't cleared, the firmware
> > overwrites all RAM contents before booting anything else.
>
> I admit my information is rather dated, but I'm pretty sure that at
> least some and possibly all TXT implementations solve this more
> directly. In particular, as I understand it, when you TXT-launch
> anything, a nonvolatile flag in the chipset is set. On reboot, the
> chipset will not allow access to memory *at all* until an
> authenticated code module wipes memory and clears that flag.
Mm, yes, this one might be something we can just ignore in the TXT case.
> > When you say "re-launch", you mean perform a second secure launch? I
> > think that would work, as long as we could reconstruct an identical
> > state to ensure that the PCR17 values matched - and that seems like a
> > hard problem.
>
> Exactly. I would hope that performing a second secure launch would
> reproduce the same post-launch PCRs as the first launch. If the
> kernel were wise enough to record all PCR extensions, it could replay
> them.
That presumably depends on how much state is in the measured region -
we can't just measure the code in order to assert that we're secure.
> In any case, I'm kind of with Daniel here. We survived for quite a
> long time without EFI variables at all. The ability to write them is
> nice, and we certainly need some way, however awkward, to write them
> on rare occasions, but I don't think we really need painless runtime
> writes to EFI variables.
I'm fine with a solution that involves jumping through some hoops, but
it feels like simply supporting measuring and passing through the
runtime services would be fine - if you want to keep them outside the
TCB, build a kernel that doesn't have EFI runtime service support and
skip that measurement?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists