linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,module: Detect VMX vs SLD conflicts

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: <20200407152412.GE20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:24:12 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hch@...radead.org, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        kenny@...ix.com, jeyu@...nel.org, rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, xiaoyao.li@...el.com,
        nadav.amit@...il.com, thellstrom@...are.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, jannh@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, dcovelli@...are.com, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,module: Detect VMX vs SLD conflicts

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:35:43PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It turns out that with Split-Lock-Detect enabled (default) any VMX
> > hypervisor needs at least a little modification in order to not blindly
> > inject the #AC into the guest without the guest being ready for it.
> > 
> > Since there is no telling which module implements a hypervisor, scan
> > all out-of-tree modules' text and look for VMX instructions and refuse
> > to load it when SLD is enabled (default) and the module isn't marked
> > 'sld_safe'.
> > 
> > Hypervisors, which have been modified and are known to work correctly,
> > can add:
> > 
> >   MODULE_INFO(sld_safe, "Y");
> > 
> > to explicitly tell the module loader they're good.
> 
> What's to keep any out-of-tree module from adding this same module info
> "flag" and just lie about it?  Isn't that what you are trying to catch
> here, or is it a case of, "if you lie, your code will break" as well?

If they lie they get to keep both pieces.

The thing I worry about is them lying about "intree", is there anything
that avoids that?