linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm/tdx: Save %rbp in TDX_MODULE

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: Fri, 17 May 2024 17:27:39 +0200
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm/tdx: Save %rbp in TDX_MODULE_CALL

On 17.05.24 17:16, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/17/24 07:44, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Just another data point: Before using this machine I was testing on
>> another one with older firmware. That one really didn't support NOM_RBP_MOD
>> and I needed to build the kernel with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER enabled to get
>> past the check you are mentioning above.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, the modules that intentionally clobber RBP
> don't support Linux. If buggy modules are accidentally clobbering RBP,
> we can debate how much the kernel should bend over to accommodate them,
> but my preference would be to ignore them.
> 
> I'd much rather put a deny list in the kernel than try to tolerate RBP
> clobbering universally.

Would you be fine with adding a new X86_FEATURE (or BUG?) allowing to switch
RBP save/restore via ALTERNATIVE, controlled by a command line option?

Or maybe by adding a new CONFIG_TDX_MODULE_CAN_CLOBBER_RBP (probably using
a shorter name) option?

TBH I'm slightly puzzled that the firmware I'm using could make it outside
Intel. I'm fearing this might happen again.

Juergen