On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Seunghun Han <kkamagui@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, Rafael. > > I agree with you and I added my opinion below. > > 2017-02-25 1:50 GMT+09:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Friday, February 24, 2017 09:56:21 PM Seunghun Han wrote: >>> Hi, Rafeal. >>> >>> I added my opinion below. >>> >>> 2017-02-24 21:13 GMT+09:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> > On Friday, February 24, 2017 09:15:52 PM Seunghun Han wrote: >>> >> Hi, Rafael. >>> >> >>> >> I added my opinion below. >>> >> >>> >> 2017-02-24 20:50 GMT+09:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> > On Friday, February 24, 2017 08:52:42 PM Seunghun Han wrote: >>> >> >> Hi, Lv Zheng. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I added my handcrafted ACPI table under your request, because >>> >> >> "acpidump -c on" and "acpidump -c off" doesn't work. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2017-02-21 19:36 GMT+09:00 Seunghun Han <kkamagui@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >> > Hello, >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I attached the test results below, >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 2017-02-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rowafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:33:08 AM Zheng, Lv wrote: >>> >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Seunghun >>> >> >> >>> > Han >>> >> >> >>> > Subject: [PATCH v2] acpi: acpica: fix acpi operand cache leak >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I'm Seunghun Han, and I work for National Security Research Institute of >>> >> >> >>> > South Korea. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I have been doing a research on ACPI and making a handcrafted ACPI table >>> >> >> >>> > for my research. >>> >> >> >>> > Errors of handcrafted ACPI tables are handled well in Linux kernel while boot >>> >> >> >>> > process, and Linux kernel goes well without critical problems. >>> >> >> >>> > But I found some ACPI operand cache leaks in ACPI early abort cases. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Boot log of ACPI operand cache leak is as follows: >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.174332] ACPI: Added _OSI(Module Device) >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.175504] ACPI: Added _OSI(Processor Device) >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.176010] ACPI: Added _OSI(3.0 _SCP Extensions) >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.177032] ACPI: Added _OSI(Processor Aggregator Device) >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.178284] ACPI: SCI (IRQ16705) allocation failed >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.179352] ACPI Exception: AE_NOT_ACQUIRED, Unable to install System Control Interrupt handler >>> >> >> >>> > (20160930/evevent-131) >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.180008] ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.181125] ACPI Error: Could not remove SCI handler (20160930/evmisc-281) >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.184068] kmem_cache_destroy Acpi-Operand: Slab cache still has objects >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.185358] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.10.0-rc3 #2 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.186820] Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] Call Trace: >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? dump_stack+0x5c/0x7d >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? kmem_cache_destroy+0x224/0x230 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_sleep_proc_init+0x22/0x22 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_os_delete_cache+0xa/0xd >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_ut_delete_caches+0x3f/0x7b >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_terminate+0x5/0xf >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_init+0x288/0x32e >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? __class_create+0x4c/0x80 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? video_setup+0x7a/0x7a >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? do_one_initcall+0x4e/0x1b0 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x194/0x21a >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? kernel_init+0xa/0x100 >>> >> >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? ret_from_fork+0x25/0x30 >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> I'm more interested in the way of triggering AE_NOT_ACQUIRED error. >>> >> >> >>> So could you send us the handcrafted ACPI table or both the "acpidump -c on" and "acpidump -c off" output? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I modified FACP, FACS, APIC table in VirtualBox for Linux. >>> >> >> Here are raw dumps of table. >>> >> > >>> >> > So, excuse me, but what's the security issue here? >>> >> > >>> >> > You hacked your ACPI tables into pieces which requires root privileges anyway. >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks, >>> >> > Rafael >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> As you mentioned earlier, I hacked my ACPI table for research, so it seems that >>> >> it is not a security issue. >>> >> >>> >> But, if new mainboard are released and they have a vendor-specific ACPI table >>> >> which has invalid data, the old version of kernel (<=4.9) will possibly expose >>> >> kernel address and KASLR will be neutralized unintentionally. >>> > >>> > But that would mean a basically non-functional system, so I'm not sure how >>> > anyone can actually take advantage of the "KASLR neutralization". >>> >>> I think an attacker can take advantage of the "KASLR neutralization". As you >>> know, KASLR is good technology to protect kernel from kernel exploits. >>> >>> If the kernel has vulnerabilities, the attacker can make exploit using them. >>> But, the exploit usually needs gadgets (small code), therefore the attacker >>> should know where the gadgets are in kernel. If the KASLR is working in kernel, >>> the attacker should find the actual kernel address, and he can get kernel >>> address information from kernel warning. >> >> If the system basically doesn't work, that information isn't particularly useful. >> >>> >> I know the vendors collaborate with Linux kernel developers, but the problem >>> >> can still occur. >>> >> >>> >> Hardware vendors release so many kinds of mainboard in a year, and the major >>> >> Linux distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) will have 4.8 kernel for a long time. >>> >> >>> >> For this reason, I think this issue has a security aspect. >>> > >>> > Well, not quite IMO. >>> > >>> > If the system needs ACPI tables and the kernel cannot use them, it just won't >>> > work no matter what. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Rafael >>> > >>> Yes, you are right. But, Linux kernel has well-defined exception handlers, so >>> some systems may work fine like my test machine. Moreover the users may not >>> recognize what the problem is, and I think that they will use the system in >>> insecure status for a long time. >> >> A virtual box or a guest can run without ACPI tables. A bare metal system >> where ACPI tables are necessary will be more-or-less unusable if the kernel >> cannot use them (it won't be able to detect interrupt controllers and the PCI >> host bridge just for starters). >> >> Running a guest with totally broken ACPI tables requires root privileges on the >> host. Running a bare metal system with totally broken ACPI tables (which seems >> to be your basic concern) may be a good research project, but nobody will do >> that in practice. And everybody who tries that will notice what's going on. >> >> Yes, you found a bug, but I still am not convinced about how this is security-related. > > I totally agree with you that this case is not in practice now. > I just started researching on ACPI, and I don't have enough ideas to occur > a security problem using a bug. I just think that it has a little possibility > which is security-related. > > Thank you so much for your guides. > It helps me a lot to change my research direction. > > So, could my patch be merged in next kernel (4.11 rc-1)? or do I need to do > something for it? > Please let me know. Generally, ACPICA patches (and this is one of them) have to go in via the upstream ACPICA project maintained by Bob Moore and Lv. Please see MAINTAINERS for pointers to the mailing list etc. Lv, can you please advise on the next steps? Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
