Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187458-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 14:17:34 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-35802: x86/sev: Fix position dependent variable
 references in startup code
Message-ID: <2024052310-undermost-cramp-5d81@gregkh>
References: <2024051738-CVE-2024-35802-959d@gregkh>
 <b3a6ea47-8628-4edc-aee5-e5051955124a@suse.com>
 <2024052334-cable-serotonin-fa2b@gregkh>
 <5ea91ae6-091d-4378-950b-833561eef48c@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5ea91ae6-091d-4378-950b-833561eef48c@suse.com>

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 03:01:56PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23.05.24 г. 14:21 ч., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > Isn't crashing SEV guests a problem with "availability"?  That term
> > comes from the CVE definition of what we need to mark as a CVE, which is
> > why this one was picked.
> 
> But availability has never been one of the tenets of CoCo, in fact in
> sev-snp/tdx the VMM is explicitly considered outside of the TCB so
> availability cannot be guaranteed.

This has nothing to do with CoCo (but really, ability of the host to
crash the guest seems like it should be as I would assume that CoCo
guests would want to be able to be run...)

Official CVE definition of vulnerability from cve.org:
	An instance of one or more weaknesses in a Product that can be
	exploited, causing a negative impact to confidentiality, integrity, or
	availability; a set of conditions or behaviors that allows the
	violation of an explicit or implicit security policy.

I think "able to crash SEV guests" is a direct weakness that has to do
with availability here which is why I marked it as such (as did other
reviewers.)  Now if CoCo wants to claim it as part of their security
implicit or explicit security policy, all the better :)

thanks,

greg k-h