From: Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@google.com>,
Benson Leung <bleung@google.com>, Todd Broch <tbroch@google.com>,
Alex Levin <levinale@google.com>,
Mattias Nissler <mnissler@google.com>,
Zubin Mithra <zsm@google.com>, Rajat Jain <rajatxjain@gmail.com>,
"Keany, Bernie" <bernie.keany@intel.com>,
Aaron Durbin <adurbin@google.com>,
Diego Rivas <diegorivas@google.com>,
Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@google.com>,
Furquan Shaikh <furquan@google.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Restrict the untrusted devices, to bind to only a set of "whitelisted" drivers
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:31:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACK8Z6FEZFKA9xo-UkADAun-hK71CdFu=1OjukEF=zC9kbpKPQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACK8Z6E8pjVeC934oFgr=VB3pULx_GyT2NkzAogdRQJ9TKSX9A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Bjorn,
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:07 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Currently, the PCI subsystem marks the PCI devices as "untrusted", if
> the firmware asks it to:
>
> 617654aae50e ("PCI / ACPI: Identify untrusted PCI devices")
> 9cb30a71acd4 ("PCI: OF: Support "external-facing" property")
>
> An "untrusted" device indicates a (likely external facing) device that
> may be malicious, and can trigger DMA attacks on the system. It may
> also try to exploit any vulnerabilities exposed by the driver, that
> may allow it to read/write unintended addresses in the host (e.g. if
> DMA buffers for the device, share memory pages with other driver data
> structures or code etc).
>
> High Level proposal
> ===============
> Currently, the "untrusted" device property is used as a hint to enable
> IOMMU restrictions (on Intel), disable ATS (on ARM) etc. We'd like to
> go a step further, and allow the administrator to build a list of
> whitelisted drivers for these "untrusted" devices. This whitelist of
> drivers are the ones that he trusts enough to have little or no
> vulnerabilities. (He may have built this list of whitelisted drivers
> by a combination of code analysis of drivers, or by extensive testing
> using PCIe fuzzing etc). We propose that the administrator be allowed
> to specify this list of whitelisted drivers to the kernel, and the PCI
> subsystem to impose this behavior:
>
> 1) The "untrusted" devices can bind to only "whitelisted drivers".
> 2) The other devices (i.e. dev->untrusted=0) can bind to any driver.
>
> Of course this behavior is to be imposed only if such a whitelist is
> provided by the administrator.
I was wondering if you got a chance to look at this proposal? WDYT?
Thanks & Best Regards,
Rajat
>
> Details
> ======
>
> 1) A kernel argument ("pci.impose_driver_whitelisting") to enable
> imposing of whitelisting by PCI subsystem.
>
> 2) Add a flag ("whitelisted") in struct pci_driver to indicate whether
> the driver is whitelisted.
>
> 3) Use the driver's "whitelisted" flag and the device's "untrusted"
> flag, to make a decision about whether to bind or not in
> pci_bus_match() or similar.
>
> 4) A mechanism to allow the administrator to specify the whitelist of
> drivers. I think this needs more thought as there are multiple
> options.
>
> a) Expose individual driver's "whitelisted" flag to userspace so a
> boot script can whitelist that driver. There are questions that still
> need answered though e.g. what to do about the devices that may have
> already been enumerated and rejected by then? What to do with the
> already bound devices, if the user changes a driver to remove it from
> the whitelist. etc.
>
> b) Provide a way to specify the whitelist via the kernel command
> line. Accept a ("pci.whitelist") kernel parameter which is a comma
> separated list of driver names (just like "module_blacklist"), and
> then use it to initialize each driver's "whitelisted" flag as the
> drivers are registered. Essentially this would mean that the whitelist
> of devices cannot be changed after boot.
>
> To me (b) looks a better option but I think a future requirement would
> be the ability to remove the drivers from the whitelist after boot
> (adding drivers to whitelist at runtime may not be that critical IMO)
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rajat
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-11 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-01 23:07 [RFC] Restrict the untrusted devices, to bind to only a set of "whitelisted" drivers Rajat Jain
2020-05-04 11:47 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-05-04 11:59 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2020-05-04 19:17 ` Rajat Jain
2020-05-05 12:33 ` Mika Westerberg
2020-05-06 18:51 ` Rajat Jain
2020-05-11 20:31 ` Rajat Jain [this message]
2020-05-13 15:19 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-05-13 21:26 ` Rajat Jain
2020-05-14 13:42 ` Mika Westerberg
2020-05-14 19:12 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-05-15 2:18 ` Rajat Jain
2020-05-26 16:30 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-01 23:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-02 5:06 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-03 2:27 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-03 6:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-03 11:51 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-03 12:16 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-03 12:57 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-03 13:29 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-04 19:38 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-05 8:02 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-06 1:08 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-07 11:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-08 17:03 ` Jesse Barnes
2020-06-08 17:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-08 18:29 ` Jesse Barnes
2020-06-08 18:41 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-09 9:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-30 21:46 ` Pavel Machek
2020-06-09 5:57 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-30 21:45 ` Pavel Machek
2020-07-01 6:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-07-01 8:47 ` Pavel Machek
2020-07-01 10:57 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-07-01 11:08 ` Pavel Machek
2020-06-09 21:04 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-09 23:23 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-10 0:04 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-10 0:30 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-10 20:17 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-10 23:09 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-10 23:01 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-10 23:46 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-10 7:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-10 1:34 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2020-06-10 19:57 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-16 1:24 ` Rajat Jain
2020-06-10 7:12 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-05-15 12:44 ` Joerg Roedel
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='CACK8Z6FEZFKA9xo-UkADAun-hK71CdFu=1OjukEF=zC9kbpKPQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=rajatja@google.com \
--cc=adurbin@google.com \
--cc=bernie.keany@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bleung@google.com \
--cc=diegorivas@google.com \
--cc=dlaurie@google.com \
--cc=furquan@google.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=jsbarnes@google.com \
--cc=levinale@google.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mnissler@google.com \
--cc=pmalani@google.com \
--cc=rajatxjain@gmail.com \
--cc=tbroch@google.com \
--cc=zsm@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).