linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] efi: Load efi_secret module if EFI secret area is populated

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, 12 Apr 2022 15:08:25 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Scull <ascull@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jim Cadden <jcadden@....com>,
        Daniele Buono <dbuono@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] efi: Load efi_secret module if EFI secret area is populated

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:05, Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Ard,
>
> On 28/02/2022 15:15, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:07, Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28/02/2022 14:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 12:43, Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If the efi_secret module is built, register a late_initcall in the EFI
> >>>> driver which checks whether the EFI secret area is available and
> >>>> populated, and then requests to load the efi_secret module.
> >>>>
> >>>> This will cause the <securityfs>/secrets/coco directory to appear in
> >>>> guests into which secrets were injected; in other cases, the module is
> >>>> not loaded.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
> >>>
> >>> It would be better to simply expose a platform device and associated
> >>> driver, instead of hooking into the module machinery directly.
> >>>
> >>> We already do something similar for the EFI rtc and the efivars
> >>> subsystem, using platform_device_register_simple()
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks Ard, I'll look into this.
> >>
> >> I hope the mechanism you suggest allows me to perform complex check to
> >> see if the device is really there (in this case: check for an efi
> >> variable, map memory as encrypted, verify it starts with a specific GUID
> >> -- everything before request_module() in the code below).
> >>
> >
> > There is the device part and the driver part. Some of this belongs in
> > the core code that registers the platform device, and some of it
> > belongs in the driver. At this point, it probably does not matter that
> > much which side does what, as the platform driver simply probes and
> > can perform whatever check it needs, as long as it can back out
> > gracefully (although I understand that, in this particular case, there
> > are reasons why the driver may decide to wipe the secret)
>
> I finally got to implement this, it seems like it makes the code simple.
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> Just making sure I understand correctly: in this approach this we rely
> on udev to load the efi_secret module (aliased as "platform:efi_secret")
> and call its .probe() function?  If there's no udev, the module will not
> be loaded automatically.  Did I understand that correctly?
>

Apologies, I am swamped in email and only spotted this now.

This looks good to me: is this what you implemented in the end?