linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-35802: x86/sev: Fix position dependent variable references in startup code

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: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:21:05 +0300
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 23.05.24 г. 15:17 ч., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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

I don't see how this is exactly "explotaible" i.e if a guest is run and 
it crashes during bootup it simply won't run. Can this be considered 
active exploitation of an issue?

> 	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