linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] x86,module: Detect VMX modules and disable Split-Lock-Detect

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: <20200406142711.47780ff5@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:27:11 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        "Kenneth R. Crudup" <kenny@...ix.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86,module: Detect VMX modules and disable
 Split-Lock-Detect

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:22:31 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:18:47AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:40:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:  
> > > It is absolutely bonkers, but at the same time we can extend this
> > > infrastructure to scan for dubious code patterns we don't want to
> > > support. Like for instance direct manipulation of CR4.  
> > 
> > But that is not what this code does - it disables split lock detection.
> > If it failed to load the module the whole thing would make a little
> > more sense.  
> 
> If this lives, it'll be to just to fail module loading. IIRC the same
> was suggested elsewhere in the thread.

I believe I may have been the one to suggest it. It's no different than
breaking kabi if you ask me. If a module can't deal with a new feature,
than it should not be able to load. And let whoever owns that module fix it
for their users.

-- Steve