linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] driver core: Add common support to skip probe for un-authorized 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]

Message-ID: <95b0e0c1-b0a2-944d-0b57-30360ac39a35@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 08:56:31 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] driver core: Add common support to skip probe for
 un-authorized devices


> Forget about trust for the moment.  Let's say the goal is to prevent
> the kernel from creating any bindings other that those in some small
> "allowed" set.  To fully specify one of the allowed bindings, you
> would have to provide both a device ID and a driver name.  But in
> practice this isn't necessary, since a device with a given ID will
> bind to only one driver in almost all cases, and hence giving just
> the device ID is enough.
>
> So to do what they want, all that's needed is to forbid any bindings
> except where the device ID is "allowed".  Or to put it another way,
> where the device's authorized flag (which can be initialized based on
> the device ID) is set.
>
> (The opposite approach, in which the drivers are "allowed" rather
> than the device IDs, apparently has already been discussed and
> rejected.  I'm not convinced that was a good decision, but...)
>
> Does this seem like a fair description of the situation?

Yes. That's roughly what the patchkit under discussion implements.


-Andi