Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] xsm: allows system domains to allocate evtchn

["Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/30/22 11:15, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:04 AM Daniel P. Smith
> <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/30/22 08:30, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:30 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29.03.2022 20:57, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/22 02:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> Similarly I don't see how things would work transparently with a
>>>>>> Flask policy in place. Regardless of you mentioning the restriction,
>>>>>> I think this wants resolving before the patch can go in.
>>>>>
>>>>> To enable the equivalent in flask would require no hypervisor code
>>>>> changes. Instead that would be handled by adding the necessary rules to
>>>>> the appropriate flask policy file(s).
>>>>
>>>> Of course this can be dealt with by adjusting policy file(s), but until
>>>> people do so they'd end up with a perceived regression and/or unexplained
>>>> difference in behavior from running in dummy (or SILO, once also taken
>>>> care of) mode.
>>>
>>> This need to change the Flask policy is the crux of my dislike for
>>> making Xen-internal operations go through XSM checks.  It is wrong,
>>> IMO, to require the separate policy to grant xen_t permissions for
>>> proper operation.  I prefer restructuring the code so Xen itself
>>> doesn't have to go through XSM checks since that way Xen itself always
>>> runs properly regardless of the policy.
>>>
>>> This is more based on unmap_domain_pirq having an XSM check for an
>>> internal operation.  dom0less, hyperlaunch, & Live Update may all be
>>> niche use cases where requiring a policy change is reasonable.
>>
>> I will continue to agree with the base logic that today any least
>> privilege separation imposed is merely artificial in the face of any
>> attack that gains execution control over hypervisor space. What I will
>> disagree with is using that as a justification to create tight couplings
>> between the internals of the hypervisor that have a potential of causing
>> more work in the future when people are looking to use for instance's
>> Arms upcoming capability pointers as a real separation enforcement
>> mechanisms to de-privilege portions of the hypervisor.
>>
>> While on principle it is justified to object to having policy statements
>> that present a facade, is it not better to look longer term than object
>> to some thing on principle based in the now?
> 
> Your claims seem to be speculative about something that doesn't exist,
> so I can't evaluate them.

Apologies, let me give you some references as well.

https://mrfunk.info/?page_id=5
https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2019/speaker/hunt/

v/r,
dps