From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
Cc: "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: Disable at runtime if the kernel enforces module signing
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:32:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130809153225.GH12688@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1376060830.2021.12.camel@x230>
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:07:13PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 07:02 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:36:37AM -0400, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > kexec permits the loading and execution of arbitrary code in ring 0, which
> > > is something that module signing enforcement is meant to prevent. It makes
> > > sense to disable kexec in this situation.
> > >
> >
> > But in the process we wipe out running kernel's context and boot into a new
> > kernel. So how different it is than root booting a new kernel through BIOS
> > which does not enforce module signing.
>
> What wipes the current kernel's context? KEXEC_JUMP is explicitly
> designed to allow you to hop back and forth, but even without it you
> should be able to reconstruct the original context. And there's no need
> to boot a new kernel, either. All the attacker needs is the physical
> address of the sig_enforce boolean, and then they launch a simple kexec
> payload that simply flips that back and returns to the original kernel -
> it's not like kexec limits you to booting Linux.
>
> > Also it would be nice if we introduce new features, then we make other
> > features work with those new features instead of disabling existing
> > features and leave it to other people to make them work.
>
> Sure, it'd be nice if security features got introduced with
> consideration to other kernel features that allow them to be
> circumvented, but this approach seems better than making them
> incompatible at the Kconfig level.
So how would one go about making kexec work when module signature
enforcement is on?
I guess same solution which is required to make it work with secureboot.
Sign /sbin/kexec and let /sbin/kexec very signature of kernel. IOW, any
code which runs at priviliged level should be signature verified with
keys in system_keyring.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-09 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-09 7:36 [PATCH] kexec: Disable at runtime if the kernel enforces module signing Matthew Garrett
2013-08-09 11:02 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-08-09 15:07 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-09 15:24 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-08-09 15:32 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2013-08-09 15:35 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-08-09 16:11 ` Matthew Garrett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130809153225.GH12688@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.garrett@nebula.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox