[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6981cc9-ea89-47fb-9084-267eba05c7a1@suse.com>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists