Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:33:15 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@digikod.net>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
        Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Forrest Yuan Yu <yuanyu@google.com>,
        James Gowans <jgowans@amazon.com>,
        James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>,
        John Andersen <john.s.andersen@intel.com>,
        Marian Rotariu <marian.c.rotariu@gmail.com>,
        Mihai =?utf-8?B?RG9uyJt1?= <mdontu@bitdefender.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?TmljdciZb3IgQ8OuyJt1?= <nicu.citu@icloud.com>,
        Thara Gopinath <tgopinath@microsoft.com>,
        Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@quicinc.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
        Zahra Tarkhani <ztarkhani@microsoft.com>,
        =?utf-8?Q?=C8=98tefan_=C8=98icleru?= <ssicleru@bitdefender.com>,
        dev@lists.cloudhypervisor.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 17/19] heki: x86: Update permissions counters
 during text patching
Message-ID: <20231130113315.GE20191@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20231113022326.24388-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <20231113022326.24388-18-mic@digikod.net>
 <20231113081929.GA16138@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a52d8885-43cc-4a4e-bb47-9a800070779e@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20231127200841.GZ3818@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ea63ae4e-e8ea-4fbf-9383-499e14de2f5e@linux.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ea63ae4e-e8ea-4fbf-9383-499e14de2f5e@linux.microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:07:15PM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

> Kernel Lockdown
> ---------------
> 
> But, we must provide at least some security in V2. Otherwise, it is useless.
> 
> So, we have implemented what we call a kernel lockdown. At the end of kernel
> boot, Heki establishes permissions in the extended page table as mentioned
> before. Also, it adds an immutable attribute for kernel text and kernel RO data.
> Beyond that point, guest requests that attempt to modify permissions on any of
> the immutable pages will be denied.
> 
> This means that features like FTrace and KProbes will not work on kernel text
> in V2. This is a temporary limitation. Once authentication is in place, the
> limitation will go away.

So either you're saying your patch 17 / text_poke is broken (so why
include it ?!?) or your statement above is incorrect. Pick one.


> __text_poke()
> 	This function is called by various features to patch text.
> 	This calls heki_text_poke_start() and heki_text_poke_end().
> 
> 	heki_text_poke_start() is called to add write permissions to the
> 	extended page table so that text can be patched. heki_text_poke_end()
> 	is called to revert write permissions in the extended page table.

This, if text_poke works, then static_call / jump_label / ftrace and
everything else should work, they all rely on this.


> Peter mentioned the following:
> 
> "if you want to mirror the native PTEs why don't you hook into the
> paravirt page-table muck and get all that for free?"
> 
> We did consider using a shadow page table kind of approach so that guest page table
> modifications can be intercepted and reflected in the page table entry. We did not
> do this for two reasons:
> 
> - there are bits in the page table entry that are not permission bits. We would like
>   the guest kernel to be able to modify them directly.

This statement makes no sense.

> - we cannot tell a genuine request from an attack.

Why not? How is an explicit call different from an explicit call in a
paravirt hook?

From a maintenance pov we already hate paravirt with a passion, but it
is ever so much better than sprinkling yet another pile of crap
(heki_*) around.