linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efi/x86: use naked RET on mixed mode call wrapper

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:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:46:34 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...onical.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/x86: use naked RET on mixed mode call wrapper

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:34:02AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Why would we have to protect the kernel from EFI?

Yes, we cleared this up on IRC in the meantime.

This was raised as a concern in case we don't trust EFI. But we cannot
not (double negation on purpose) trust EFI because it can do whatever it
likes anyway, "underneath" the OS.

I'm keeping the UNTRAIN_RET-in-C diff in my patches/ folder, though - I
get the feeling we might need it soon for something else.

:-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)