Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187464-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <d6981cc9-ea89-47fb-9084-267eba05c7a1@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:21:05 +0300
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-35802: x86/sev: Fix position dependent variable
 references in startup code
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
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>
 <2024052310-undermost-cramp-5d81@gregkh>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <2024052310-undermost-cramp-5d81@gregkh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 23.05.24 г. 15:17 ч., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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

I don't see how this is exactly "explotaible" i.e if a guest is run and 
it crashes during bootup it simply won't run. Can this be considered 
active exploitation of an issue?

> 	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