public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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