[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d3469e0b-32a5-d130-41b1-facdf0d91a92@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 12:44:15 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: "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 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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists