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]

Message-ID: <2024052327-cider-finance-d040@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 14:38:44 +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 03:21:05PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

Isn't preventing a guest from running something that causes a lack of
avaiability?  Again, that's why we picked this commit, it keeps the
system from working properly as expected.

thanks,

greg k-h