linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Don't apply gfx quirks to untrusted devices

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:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:50:03 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...el.com>
To:     Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        lalithambika.krishnakumar@...el.com, rajatxjain@...il.com,
        pmalani@...gle.com, bleung@...gle.com, levinale@...gle.com,
        zsm@...gle.com, mnissler@...gle.com, tbroch@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Don't apply gfx quirks to untrusted devices

On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 10:45:17PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote:
> Currently, an external malicious PCI device can masquerade the VID:PID
> of faulty gfx devices, and thus apply iommu quirks to effectively
> disable the IOMMU restrictions for itself.
> 
> Thus we need to ensure that the device we are applying quirks to, is
> indeed an internal trusted device.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> index ef0a5246700e5..f2a480168a02f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> @@ -6214,6 +6214,11 @@ const struct iommu_ops intel_iommu_ops = {
>  
>  static void quirk_iommu_igfx(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  {
> +	if (dev->untrusted) {
> +		pci_warn(dev, "skipping iommu quirk for untrusted gfx dev\n");

I think you should be consistent with other messages. For example iommu
should be spelled IOMMU as done below.

Also this is visible to users so maybe put bit more information there:

  pci_warn(dev, "Will not apply IOMMU quirk for untrusted graphics device\n");

Ditto for all the other places. Also is "untrusted" good word here? If
an ordinary user sees this will it trigger some sort of panic reaction.
Perhaps we should call it "potentially untrusted" or something like
that?

> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>  	pci_info(dev, "Disabling IOMMU for graphics on this chipset\n");
>  	dmar_map_gfx = 0;