linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/14] cxl/mem: Add limited Get Log command (0401h)

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: <YBroGrVd76p+BF0v@Konrads-MacBook-Pro.local>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:14:50 -0500
From:   Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:     Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Chris Browy <cbrowy@...ry-design.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        daniel.lll@...baba-inc.com,
        "John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@...ron.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] cxl/mem: Add limited Get Log command (0401h)

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:16:10AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On 21-02-02 15:57:03, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:51 PM Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21-02-01 13:28:48, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 04:24:37PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > > The Get Log command returns the actual log entries that are advertised
> > > > > via the Get Supported Logs command (0400h). CXL device logs are selected
> > > > > by UUID which is part of the CXL spec. Because the driver tries to
> > > > > sanitize what is sent to hardware, there becomes a need to restrict the
> > > > > types of logs which can be accessed by userspace. For example, the
> > > > > vendor specific log might only be consumable by proprietary, or offline
> > > > > applications, and therefore a good candidate for userspace.
> > > > >
> > > > > The current driver infrastructure does allow basic validation for all
> > > > > commands, but doesn't inspect any of the payload data. Along with Get
> > > > > Log support comes new infrastructure to add a hook for payload
> > > > > validation. This infrastructure is used to filter out the CEL UUID,
> > > > > which the userspace driver doesn't have business knowing, and taints on
> > > > > invalid UUIDs being sent to hardware.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps a better option is to reject invalid UUIDs?
> > > >
> > > > And if you really really want to use invalid UUIDs then:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Make that code wrapped in CONFIG_CXL_DEBUG_THIS_IS_GOING_TO..?
> > > >
> > > > 2) Wrap it with lockdown code so that you can't do this at all
> > > >    when in LOCKDOWN_INTEGRITY or such?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The commit message needs update btw as CEL is allowed in the latest rev of the
> > > patches.
> > >
> > > We could potentially combine this with the now added (in a branch) CONFIG_RAW
> > > config option. Indeed I think that makes sense. Dan, thoughts?
> > 
> > Yeah, unknown UUIDs blocking is the same risk as raw commands as a
> > vendor can trigger any behavior they want. A "CONFIG_RAW depends on
> > !CONFIG_INTEGRITY" policy sounds reasonable as well.
> 
> What about LOCKDOWN_NONE though? I think we need something runtime for this.
> 
> Can we summarize the CONFIG options here?
> 
> CXL_MEM_INSECURE_DEBUG // no change
> CXL_MEM_RAW_COMMANDS // if !security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_NONE)
> 
> bool cxl_unsafe()

Would it be better if this inverted? Aka cxl_safe()..
?
> {
> #ifndef CXL_MEM_RAW_COMMANDS
> 	return false;
> #else
> 	return !security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_NONE);

:thumbsup:

(Naturally this would inverted if this was cxl_safe()).


> #endif
> }
> 
> ---
> 
> Did I get that right?

:nods: