|
Message-ID: <99FC4B6EFCEFD44486C35F4C281DC6732143F769@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:45:10 +0000 From: "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com> To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> CC: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, "selinux@...ho.nsa.gov" <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>, "kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] X86: Support LSM determination of side-channel vulnerability > -----Original Message----- > From: Jann Horn [mailto:jannh@...gle.com] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 4:55 PM > To: Schaufler, Casey <casey.schaufler@...el.com> > Cc: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>; kernel list > <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; linux-security-module <linux-security- > module@...r.kernel.org>; selinux@...ho.nsa.gov; Hansen, Dave > <dave.hansen@...el.com>; Dock, Deneen T <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>; > kristen@...ux.intel.com; Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] X86: Support LSM determination of side- > channel vulnerability > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:17 AM Casey Schaufler > <casey.schaufler@...el.com> wrote: > > > > From: Casey Schaufler <cschaufler@...alhost.localdomain> > > > > When switching between tasks it may be necessary > > to set an indirect branch prediction barrier if the > > tasks are potentially vulnerable to side-channel > > attacks. This adds a call to security_task_safe_sidechannel > > so that security modules can weigh in on the decision. > > > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > index 6eb1f34c3c85..8714d4af06aa 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > > #include <linux/export.h> > > #include <linux/cpu.h> > > #include <linux/debugfs.h> > > +#include <linux/security.h> > > > > #include <asm/tlbflush.h> > > #include <asm/mmu_context.h> > > @@ -270,11 +271,14 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, > struct mm_struct *next, > > * threads. It will also not flush if we switch to idle > > * thread and back to the same process. It will flush if we > > * switch to a different non-dumpable process. > > + * If a security module thinks that the transition > > + * is unsafe do the flush. > > */ > > - if (tsk && tsk->mm && > > - tsk->mm->context.ctx_id != last_ctx_id && > > - get_dumpable(tsk->mm) != SUID_DUMP_USER) > > - indirect_branch_prediction_barrier(); > > + if (tsk && tsk->mm && tsk->mm->context.ctx_id != last_ctx_id) { > > + if (get_dumpable(tsk->mm) != SUID_DUMP_USER || > > + security_task_safe_sidechannel(tsk) != 0) > > + indirect_branch_prediction_barrier(); > > + } > > When you posted v1 of this series, I asked: > > | Does this enforce transitivity? What happens if we first switch from > | an attacker task to a task without ->mm, and immediately afterwards > | from the task without ->mm to a victim task? In that case, whether a > | flush happens between the attacker task and the victim task depends on > | whether the LSM thinks that the mm-less task should have access to the > | victim task, right? > > Have you addressed that? I don't see it... Nope. That's going to require maintaining state about all the tasks in the chain that might still have cache involvement. A -> B -> C -> D If B and C don't do anything cacheworthy D could conceivably attack A. The amount of state required to detect this case would be prohibitive. I think that if you're sufficiently concerned about this case you should just go ahead and set the barrier. I'm willing to learn something that says I'm wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.