[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0891544-98b9-447a-a382-bfc078865243@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:21:21 +0200
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vannapurve@...gle.com,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] /dev/mem: Disable /dev/mem under TDX guest
On 18.03.25 г. 15:27 ч., Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 02:53:34PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> I think we need to think wider. What about applying a subset of LOCKDOWN_*
>>> in all coco guests by default. Many of them are relevant for the guest security.
>>
>> How do you envision this to work, by introducing another
>> CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL_FORCE_COCO or some such ? Will it be opt-in or
>> mandatory?
>
> I think cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_xxx) should enabled some subset of
> LOCKDOWN_*. No need in new config options.
Care to suggest which ones should be included? The way lockdown works at
the moment is that it only supports 2 levels (check lock_kernel_down()
and lockdown_is_locked_down()) at which you can lockdown - INTEGRITY_MAX
and CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX, where each level includes everything below it.
So by choosing integrity max you get:
19 LOCKDOWN_MODULE_SIGNATURE,
18 LOCKDOWN_DEV_MEM,
17 LOCKDOWN_EFI_TEST,
16 LOCKDOWN_KEXEC,
15 LOCKDOWN_HIBERNATION,
14 LOCKDOWN_PCI_ACCESS,
13 LOCKDOWN_IOPORT,
12 LOCKDOWN_MSR,
11 LOCKDOWN_ACPI_TABLES,
10 LOCKDOWN_DEVICE_TREE,
9 LOCKDOWN_PCMCIA_CIS,
8 LOCKDOWN_TIOCSSERIAL,
7 LOCKDOWN_MODULE_PARAMETERS,
6 LOCKDOWN_MMIOTRACE,
5 LOCKDOWN_DEBUGFS,
4 LOCKDOWN_XMON_WR,
3 LOCKDOWN_BPF_WRITE_USER,
2 LOCKDOWN_DBG_WRITE_KERNEL,
1 LOCKDOWN_RTAS_ERROR_INJECTION,
Given this if we for example choose to lockdown the kernel for DEV_MEM,
we'll also get the MODULE_SIGNATURE lockdown as well. I find this
somewhat inflexible as we might have to rejuggle the current ordering.
>
>> Should we decide to follow the lockdown route this means the owner of the
>> coco guest will have the ability to disable it and a misbehaving userspace
>> process will still be able to induce an EPT violation.
>
> Sure. It can shoot itself in the foot.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists