[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024052310-undermost-cramp-5d81@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 14:17:34 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-35802: x86/sev: Fix position dependent variable
references in startup code
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 03:01:56PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 23.05.24 г. 14:21 ч., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > Isn't crashing SEV guests a problem with "availability"? That term
> > comes from the CVE definition of what we need to mark as a CVE, which is
> > why this one was picked.
>
> But availability has never been one of the tenets of CoCo, in fact in
> sev-snp/tdx the VMM is explicitly considered outside of the TCB so
> availability cannot be guaranteed.
This has nothing to do with CoCo (but really, ability of the host to
crash the guest seems like it should be as I would assume that CoCo
guests would want to be able to be run...)
Official CVE definition of vulnerability from cve.org:
An instance of one or more weaknesses in a Product that can be
exploited, causing a negative impact to confidentiality, integrity, or
availability; a set of conditions or behaviors that allows the
violation of an explicit or implicit security policy.
I think "able to crash SEV guests" is a direct weakness that has to do
with availability here which is why I marked it as such (as did other
reviewers.) Now if CoCo wants to claim it as part of their security
implicit or explicit security policy, all the better :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists