linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/tdx: Extract GET_INFO call from get_cc

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: <20221031221011.maiizaqbo3x37n2b@box.shutemov.name>
Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 01:10:11 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        elena.reshetova@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/tdx: Extract GET_INFO call from get_cc_mask()

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:44:15PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/31/22 12:27, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Moving panic() after earlyprintk working is not good idea as it exposes
> >> kernel more: by the time we already have full #VE handler.
> > 
> > It should be fine to move since there is no user land at this point (the
> > attack requires user land)
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the exposure.  A normal MMIO #VE goes
> something like this:
> 
> 	1. %rax points to some MMIO
> 	2. Kernel executes: mov (%rax),%rbx, trying to read MMIO
> 	3. #VE handler is triggered
> 	4. Handler emulates the 'mov' with instruction decoding
> 	5. Handler asks the VMM what the value of %rax should be
> 	6. Handler puts VMM value in %rax
> 	7. Return from #VE
> 
> I think the attack scenario subverts a normal MMIO to the following
> (changes from the normal flow are marked with *):
> 
> 	*1. %rax points to some private kernel memory, VMM removes
> 	    Secure-EPT entry for that memory.
> 	 2. Kernel executes: mov (%rax),%rbx as part of normal kernel
> 	    execution, not an MMIO read.
> 	 3. #VE handler is triggered, assuming a MMIO read
> 	 4. Handler emulates the 'mov' with instruction decoding
> 	 5. Handler asks the VMM what the value of %rax should be
> 	*6. Handler puts (malicious) VMM value in %rax
> 	 7. Return from #VE
> 	*8. Now the guest kernel is running with an attacker-controlled
> 	    %rax
> 
> This effectively gives the attacker the ability to override the contents
> of a memory read.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding the attack scenario?  I don't see guest userspace
> needing to be involved at all.

Looks correct to me.

I think Andi refers to attack against syscall gap that also addressed by
the patch.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov