linux-kernel - Re: security issue: data exposure when using block layer secure erase

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: <YjIm6f6pSX1CKeqb@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Mar 2022 18:05:29 +0000
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, jaegeuk@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: security issue: data exposure when using block layer secure erase

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> while staring at the block layer code I found what I think is a major
> security issue with the use of REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE.
> 
> The issue is not about the actual protocol implementation, which only
> exists for eMMC [1], but about we handle issuing the operation in the
> block layer.  That is done through __blkdev_issue_discard, which
> takes various parameters into account to align the issue discard
> request to what the hardware prefers.  Which is perfectly fine for
> discard as an advisory operation, but deadly for an operation that
> wants to make data inaccessible.  The problem has existed ever since
> secure erase support was added to the kernel with commit
> 8d57a98ccd0b ("block: add secure discard"), which added secure erase
> support as a REQ_SECURE flag to the discard operation.

__blkdev_issue_discard() can break up the region into multiple bios, but I don't
see where it actually skips parts of the region.  Can you explain more
specifically where the problem is?

- Eric