[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wn9uzhqr.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:12:44 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
ajd@...ux.ibm.com, gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com, nayna@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/rtas: block error injection when locked down
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 3:38 PM Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> The error injection facility on pseries VMs allows corruption of
>> arbitrary guest memory, potentially enabling a sufficiently privileged
>> user to disable lockdown or perform other modifications of the running
>> kernel via the rtas syscall.
>>
>> Block the PAPR error injection facility from being opened or called
>> when locked down.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> include/linux/security.h | 1 +
>> security/security.c | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
>> index 1ca8dbacd3cc..b5d5138ae66a 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/security.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
>> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ enum lockdown_reason {
>> LOCKDOWN_BPF_WRITE_USER,
>> LOCKDOWN_DBG_WRITE_KERNEL,
>> LOCKDOWN_DEVICE_TREE,
>> + LOCKDOWN_RTAS_ERROR_INJECTION,
>
> With the understanding that I've never heard of RTAS until now, are
> there any other RTAS events that would require a lockdown reason? As
> a follow up, is it important to distinguish between different RTAS
> lockdown reasons?
>
> I'm trying to determine if we can just call it LOCKDOWN_RTAS.
Yes I think we should.
Currently it only locks down the error injection calls, not all of RTAS.
But firmware can/will add new RTAS calls in future, so it's always
possible something will need to be added to the list of things that need
to be blocked during lockdown.
So I think calling it LOCKDOWN_RTAS would be more general and future
proof, and can be read to mean "lockdown the parts of RTAS that need
to be locked down".
Similarly we have LOCKDOWN_ACPI_TABLES which locks down modification to
ACPI data, but doesn't disable ACPI use entirely AIUI.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists