lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi everyone,

Yesterday, I found a lockdown bypass in Ubuntu 18.04's kernel using
ACPI table tricks via the efi ssdt variable [1]. Today I found another
one that's a bit easier to exploit and appears to be unpatched on
mainline, using acpi_configfs to inject an ACPI table. The tricks are
basically the same as the first one, but this one appears to be
unpatched, at least on my test machine. Explanation is in the header
of the PoC:

https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh

I need to get some sleep, but if nobody posts a patch in the
meanwhile, I'll try to post a fix tomorrow.

Jason

[1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/06/14/1

lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi everyone,

Yesterday, I found a lockdown bypass in Ubuntu 18.04's kernel using
ACPI table tricks via the efi ssdt variable [1]. Today I found another
one that's a bit easier to exploit and appears to be unpatched on
mainline, using acpi_configfs to inject an ACPI table. The tricks are
basically the same as the first one, but this one appears to be
unpatched, at least on my test machine. Explanation is in the header
of the PoC:

https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh

I need to get some sleep, but if nobody posts a patch in the
meanwhile, I'll try to post a fix tomorrow.

Jason

[1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/06/14/1

[PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Like other vectors already patched, this one here allows the root user
to load ACPI tables, which enables arbitrary physical address writes,
which in turn makes it possible to disable lockdown. This patch prevents
this by checking the lockdown status before allowing a new ACPI table to be
installed. The link in the trailer shows a PoC of how this might be
used.

Link: https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c
index ece8c1a921cc..88c8af455ea3 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/configfs.h>
 #include <linux/acpi.h>
+#include <linux/security.h>
 
 #include "acpica/accommon.h"
 #include "acpica/actables.h"
@@ -28,7 +29,10 @@ static ssize_t acpi_table_aml_write(struct config_item *cfg,
 {
 	const struct acpi_table_header *header = data;
 	struct acpi_table *table;
-	int ret;
+	int ret = security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_ACPI_TABLES);
+
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	table = container_of(cfg, struct acpi_table, cfg);
 
-- 
2.27.0

Re: [oss-security] lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

[John Haxby]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

Hi Jason,


> On 15 Jun 2020, at 11:26, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Yesterday, I found a lockdown bypass in Ubuntu 18.04's kernel using
> ACPI table tricks via the efi ssdt variable [1]. Today I found another
> one that's a bit easier to exploit and appears to be unpatched on
> mainline, using acpi_configfs to inject an ACPI table. The tricks are
> basically the same as the first one, but this one appears to be
> unpatched, at least on my test machine. Explanation is in the header
> of the PoC:
> 
> https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh
> 
> I need to get some sleep, but if nobody posts a patch in the
> meanwhile, I'll try to post a fix tomorrow.
> 
> Jason
> 
> [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/06/14/1


This looks CVE-worthy.   Are you going to ask for a CVE for it?

jch

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 268 bytes --]

Re: [oss-security] lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

[Jann Horn]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:24 PM John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On 15 Jun 2020, at 11:26, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > Yesterday, I found a lockdown bypass in Ubuntu 18.04's kernel using
> > ACPI table tricks via the efi ssdt variable [1]. Today I found another
> > one that's a bit easier to exploit and appears to be unpatched on
> > mainline, using acpi_configfs to inject an ACPI table. The tricks are
> > basically the same as the first one, but this one appears to be
> > unpatched, at least on my test machine. Explanation is in the header
> > of the PoC:
> >
> > https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh
> >
> > I need to get some sleep, but if nobody posts a patch in the
> > meanwhile, I'll try to post a fix tomorrow.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/06/14/1
>
>
> This looks CVE-worthy.   Are you going to ask for a CVE for it?

Does it really make sense to dole out CVEs for individual lockdown
bypasses when various areas of the kernel (such as filesystems and
BPF) don't see root->kernel privilege escalation issues as a problem?
It's not like applying the fix for this one issue is going to make
systems meaningfully safer.

Re: [oss-security] lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

[Jann Horn]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:24 PM John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On 15 Jun 2020, at 11:26, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > Yesterday, I found a lockdown bypass in Ubuntu 18.04's kernel using
> > ACPI table tricks via the efi ssdt variable [1]. Today I found another
> > one that's a bit easier to exploit and appears to be unpatched on
> > mainline, using acpi_configfs to inject an ACPI table. The tricks are
> > basically the same as the first one, but this one appears to be
> > unpatched, at least on my test machine. Explanation is in the header
> > of the PoC:
> >
> > https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh
> >
> > I need to get some sleep, but if nobody posts a patch in the
> > meanwhile, I'll try to post a fix tomorrow.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/06/14/1
>
>
> This looks CVE-worthy.   Are you going to ask for a CVE for it?

Does it really make sense to dole out CVEs for individual lockdown
bypasses when various areas of the kernel (such as filesystems and
BPF) don't see root->kernel privilege escalation issues as a problem?
It's not like applying the fix for this one issue is going to make
systems meaningfully safer.

Re: [oss-security] lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On 6/15/20, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:24 PM John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com> wrote:
>> > On 15 Jun 2020, at 11:26, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>> > Yesterday, I found a lockdown bypass in Ubuntu 18.04's kernel using
>> > ACPI table tricks via the efi ssdt variable [1]. Today I found another
>> > one that's a bit easier to exploit and appears to be unpatched on
>> > mainline, using acpi_configfs to inject an ACPI table. The tricks are
>> > basically the same as the first one, but this one appears to be
>> > unpatched, at least on my test machine. Explanation is in the header
>> > of the PoC:
>> >
>> > https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh
>> >
>> > I need to get some sleep, but if nobody posts a patch in the
>> > meanwhile, I'll try to post a fix tomorrow.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/06/14/1
>>
>>
>> This looks CVE-worthy.   Are you going to ask for a CVE for it?
>
> Does it really make sense to dole out CVEs for individual lockdown
> bypasses when various areas of the kernel (such as filesystems and
> BPF) don't see root->kernel privilege escalation issues as a problem?
> It's not like applying the fix for this one issue is going to make
> systems meaningfully safer.
>

Indeed, I'm more or less of the same mind: lockdown is kind of a
best-effort thing at the moment, and it'd be crazy to rely on it,
considering various bypasses and differing attitudes on the security
model from different subsystems. This acpi bypass is a bug, maybe, but
it doesn't feel like a "real" security bug, because I'm not sure why
this would be a feature somebody would want to lean on at this point
in time. I wrote a PoC for this one rather than others because it
seemed fun and technically interesting to poke around with acpi in
this way, not because it's particularly rare or something.

Re: [oss-security] lockdown bypass on mainline kernel for loading unsigned modules

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On 6/15/20, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:24 PM John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com> wrote:
>> > On 15 Jun 2020, at 11:26, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>> > Yesterday, I found a lockdown bypass in Ubuntu 18.04's kernel using
>> > ACPI table tricks via the efi ssdt variable [1]. Today I found another
>> > one that's a bit easier to exploit and appears to be unpatched on
>> > mainline, using acpi_configfs to inject an ACPI table. The tricks are
>> > basically the same as the first one, but this one appears to be
>> > unpatched, at least on my test machine. Explanation is in the header
>> > of the PoC:
>> >
>> > https://git.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language/tree/american-unsigned-language-2.sh
>> >
>> > I need to get some sleep, but if nobody posts a patch in the
>> > meanwhile, I'll try to post a fix tomorrow.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/06/14/1
>>
>>
>> This looks CVE-worthy.   Are you going to ask for a CVE for it?
>
> Does it really make sense to dole out CVEs for individual lockdown
> bypasses when various areas of the kernel (such as filesystems and
> BPF) don't see root->kernel privilege escalation issues as a problem?
> It's not like applying the fix for this one issue is going to make
> systems meaningfully safer.
>

Indeed, I'm more or less of the same mind: lockdown is kind of a
best-effort thing at the moment, and it'd be crazy to rely on it,
considering various bypasses and differing attitudes on the security
model from different subsystems. This acpi bypass is a bug, maybe, but
it doesn't feel like a "real" security bug, because I'm not sure why
this would be a feature somebody would want to lean on at this point
in time. I wrote a PoC for this one rather than others because it
seemed fun and technically interesting to poke around with acpi in
this way, not because it's particularly rare or something.

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Rafael, Len,

Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
Bigger picture is this:

https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png

Also, somebody mentioned to me that Microsoft's ACPI implementation
disallows writes to system memory as a security mitigation. I haven't
looked at what that actually entails, but I wonder if entirely
disabling support for ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY would be sensible.
I haven't looked at too many DSDTs. Would that break real hardware, or
does nobody do that? Alternatively, the range of acceptable addresses
for SystemMemory could exclude kernel memory. Would that break
anything? Have you heard about Microsoft's mitigation to know more
details on what they figured out they could safely restrict without
breaking hardware? Either way, food for thought I suppose.

Jason

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Rafael, Len,

Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
Bigger picture is this:

https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png

Also, somebody mentioned to me that Microsoft's ACPI implementation
disallows writes to system memory as a security mitigation. I haven't
looked at what that actually entails, but I wonder if entirely
disabling support for ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY would be sensible.
I haven't looked at too many DSDTs. Would that break real hardware, or
does nobody do that? Alternatively, the range of acceptable addresses
for SystemMemory could exclude kernel memory. Would that break
anything? Have you heard about Microsoft's mitigation to know more
details on what they figured out they could safely restrict without
breaking hardware? Either way, food for thought I suppose.

Jason

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 00:21, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael, Len,
>
> Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
> something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
> stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
> Bigger picture is this:
>
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png
>
> Also, somebody mentioned to me that Microsoft's ACPI implementation
> disallows writes to system memory as a security mitigation. I haven't
> looked at what that actually entails, but I wonder if entirely
> disabling support for ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY would be sensible.
> I haven't looked at too many DSDTs. Would that break real hardware, or
> does nobody do that? Alternatively, the range of acceptable addresses
> for SystemMemory could exclude kernel memory. Would that break
> anything? Have you heard about Microsoft's mitigation to know more
> details on what they figured out they could safely restrict without
> breaking hardware? Either way, food for thought I suppose.
>

ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY may be used for everything that is memory
mapped, i.e., PCIe ECAM space, GPIO control registers etc.

I agree that using ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY for any memory that is
under the kernel's control is a bad idea, and this should be easy to
filter out: the SystemMemory address space handler needs the ACPI
support routines to map the physical addresses used by AML into
virtual kernel addresses, so all these accesses go through
acpi_os_ioremap(). So as a first step, it should be reasonable to put
a lockdown check there, and fail any access to OS owned memory if
lockdown is enabled, and print a warning if it is not.

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 00:21, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael, Len,
>
> Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
> something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
> stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
> Bigger picture is this:
>
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png
>
> Also, somebody mentioned to me that Microsoft's ACPI implementation
> disallows writes to system memory as a security mitigation. I haven't
> looked at what that actually entails, but I wonder if entirely
> disabling support for ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY would be sensible.
> I haven't looked at too many DSDTs. Would that break real hardware, or
> does nobody do that? Alternatively, the range of acceptable addresses
> for SystemMemory could exclude kernel memory. Would that break
> anything? Have you heard about Microsoft's mitigation to know more
> details on what they figured out they could safely restrict without
> breaking hardware? Either way, food for thought I suppose.
>

ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY may be used for everything that is memory
mapped, i.e., PCIe ECAM space, GPIO control registers etc.

I agree that using ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY for any memory that is
under the kernel's control is a bad idea, and this should be easy to
filter out: the SystemMemory address space handler needs the ACPI
support routines to map the physical addresses used by AML into
virtual kernel addresses, so all these accesses go through
acpi_os_ioremap(). So as a first step, it should be reasonable to put
a lockdown check there, and fail any access to OS owned memory if
lockdown is enabled, and print a warning if it is not.

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:38 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 00:21, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rafael, Len,
> >
> > Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
> > something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
> > stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
> > Bigger picture is this:
> >
> > https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
> > https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png
> >
> > Also, somebody mentioned to me that Microsoft's ACPI implementation
> > disallows writes to system memory as a security mitigation. I haven't
> > looked at what that actually entails, but I wonder if entirely
> > disabling support for ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY would be sensible.
> > I haven't looked at too many DSDTs. Would that break real hardware, or
> > does nobody do that? Alternatively, the range of acceptable addresses
> > for SystemMemory could exclude kernel memory. Would that break
> > anything? Have you heard about Microsoft's mitigation to know more
> > details on what they figured out they could safely restrict without
> > breaking hardware? Either way, food for thought I suppose.
> >
>
> ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY may be used for everything that is memory
> mapped, i.e., PCIe ECAM space, GPIO control registers etc.
>
> I agree that using ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY for any memory that is
> under the kernel's control is a bad idea, and this should be easy to
> filter out: the SystemMemory address space handler needs the ACPI
> support routines to map the physical addresses used by AML into
> virtual kernel addresses, so all these accesses go through
> acpi_os_ioremap(). So as a first step, it should be reasonable to put
> a lockdown check there, and fail any access to OS owned memory if
> lockdown is enabled, and print a warning if it is not.

Makes sense. Though I was thinking of doing this unconditionally, not
just for lockdown, as a "realer" security mitigation (hence CCing
kernel-hardening), against bugs that manage to mess with acpi things.
A second mitigation might be marking inmemory acpi bytecode pages as
read only.

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:38 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 00:21, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rafael, Len,
> >
> > Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
> > something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
> > stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
> > Bigger picture is this:
> >
> > https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
> > https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png
> >
> > Also, somebody mentioned to me that Microsoft's ACPI implementation
> > disallows writes to system memory as a security mitigation. I haven't
> > looked at what that actually entails, but I wonder if entirely
> > disabling support for ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY would be sensible.
> > I haven't looked at too many DSDTs. Would that break real hardware, or
> > does nobody do that? Alternatively, the range of acceptable addresses
> > for SystemMemory could exclude kernel memory. Would that break
> > anything? Have you heard about Microsoft's mitigation to know more
> > details on what they figured out they could safely restrict without
> > breaking hardware? Either way, food for thought I suppose.
> >
>
> ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY may be used for everything that is memory
> mapped, i.e., PCIe ECAM space, GPIO control registers etc.
>
> I agree that using ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY for any memory that is
> under the kernel's control is a bad idea, and this should be easy to
> filter out: the SystemMemory address space handler needs the ACPI
> support routines to map the physical addresses used by AML into
> virtual kernel addresses, so all these accesses go through
> acpi_os_ioremap(). So as a first step, it should be reasonable to put
> a lockdown check there, and fail any access to OS owned memory if
> lockdown is enabled, and print a warning if it is not.

Makes sense. Though I was thinking of doing this unconditionally, not
just for lockdown, as a "realer" security mitigation (hence CCing
kernel-hardening), against bugs that manage to mess with acpi things.
A second mitigation might be marking inmemory acpi bytecode pages as
read only.

RE: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Kaneda, Erik]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-acpi-
> owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Ard Biesheuvel
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 1:38 AM
> To: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>; Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>;
> LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-
> acpi@vger.kernel.org>; Kernel Hardening <kernel-
> hardening@lists.openwall.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked
> down
> 
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 00:21, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rafael, Len,
> >
> > Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
> > something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
> > stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
> > Bigger picture is this:
> >
> > https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
> > https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png
> >
Hi,

> > Also, somebody mentioned to me that Microsoft's ACPI implementation
> > disallows writes to system memory as a security mitigation. I haven't
> > looked at what that actually entails, but I wonder if entirely
> > disabling support for ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY would be
> sensible.

No, Windows uses these as well. They might have some restriction on which areas are allowed though.
With that said, there are plenty of use cases (SMI handlers, power management, etc) where this is needed.
Disabling SystemMemory would definitely break existing systems.

Erik
> > I haven't looked at too many DSDTs. Would that break real hardware, or
> > does nobody do that? Alternatively, the range of acceptable addresses
> > for SystemMemory could exclude kernel memory. Would that break
> > anything? Have you heard about Microsoft's mitigation to know more
> > details on what they figured out they could safely restrict without
> > breaking hardware? Either way, food for thought I suppose.
> >
> 
> ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY may be used for everything that is
> memory
> mapped, i.e., PCIe ECAM space, GPIO control registers etc.
> 
> I agree that using ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY for any memory that
> is
> under the kernel's control is a bad idea, and this should be easy to
> filter out: the SystemMemory address space handler needs the ACPI
> support routines to map the physical addresses used by AML into
> virtual kernel addresses, so all these accesses go through
> acpi_os_ioremap(). So as a first step, it should be reasonable to put
> a lockdown check there, and fail any access to OS owned memory if
> lockdown is enabled, and print a warning if it is not.

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:20 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael, Len,
>
> Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
> something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
> stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
> Bigger picture is this:
>
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png

I was offline during the last week, sorry.

Applied as 5.8-rc material with some subject/changelog edits, thanks!

Re: [PATCH] acpi: disallow loading configfs acpi tables when locked down

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:20 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael, Len,
>
> Looks like I should have CC'd you on this patch. This is probably
> something we should get into 5.8-rc2, so that it can then get put into
> stable kernels, as some people think this is security sensitive.
> Bigger picture is this:
>
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2.gif
> https://data.zx2c4.com/american-unsigned-language-2-fedora-5.8.png

I was offline during the last week, sorry.

Applied as 5.8-rc material with some subject/changelog edits, thanks!