| Message ID | 20240503131910.307630-1-mic@digikod.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Hypervisor-Enforced Kernel Integrity - CR pinning | expand |
On Fri, May 03, 2024, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > Hi, > > This patch series implements control-register (CR) pinning for KVM and > provides an hypervisor-agnostic API to protect guests. It includes the > guest interface, the host interface, and the KVM implementation. > > It's not ready for mainline yet (see the current limitations), but we > think the overall design and interfaces are good and we'd like to have > some feedback on that. ... > # Current limitations > > This patch series doesn't handle VM reboot, kexec, nor hybernate yet. > We'd like to leverage the realated feature from KVM CR-pinning patch > series [3]. Help appreciated! Until you have a story for those scenarios, I don't expect you'll get a lot of valuable feedback, or much feedback at all. They were the hot topic for KVM CR pinning, and they'll likely be the hot topic now.
Hi, This patch series implements control-register (CR) pinning for KVM and provides an hypervisor-agnostic API to protect guests. It includes the guest interface, the host interface, and the KVM implementation. It's not ready for mainline yet (see the current limitations), but we think the overall design and interfaces are good and we'd like to have some feedback on that. # Changes since previous version We choose to remove as much as possible from the previous version of this patch series to only keep the CR pinning feature and the API. This makes the patches simpler and brings the foundation for future enhancement. This will also enables us to quickly iterate on new versions. We are still working on memory protection but that should be part of another patch series, if possible once this one land. We implemented proper KUnit tests and we are also improving the test framework to make it easier to run tests (and another series is planed): https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240408074625.65017-1-mic@digikod.net It makes sense to use KUnit for hypervisor-agnostic features. This series is rebased on top of v6.9-rc6 . guest_memfd is now merged in mainline, which will help upcoming memory-related changes. # Overview The main idea being that kernel self-protection mechanisms should be delegated to a more privileged part of the system, that is the hypervisor (see the Threat model below for more details). It is still the role of the guest kernel to request such restrictions according to its configuration. The high-level security guarantees provided by the hypervisor are semantically the same as a subset of those the kernel already enforces on itself (CR pinning hardening), but with much strong guarantees. The guest kernel API layer contains a global struct heki_hypervisor to share data and functions between the common code and the hypervisor support code. The struct heki_hypervisor enables to plug in different backend implementations that are initialized with the heki_early_init() and heki_late_init() calls. We took inspiration from previous patches, mainly the KVMI [1] [2] and KVM CR-pinning [3] series, revamped and simplified relevant parts to fit well with our goal, added one hypercall, and created a kernel API for VMs to request protection in a generic way that can be leveraged by any hypervisor. When a guest request to change one of its previously protected CR, KVM creates a GP fault. Because the VMM needs to be involved and know the guests' requested memory permissions, we implemented two new kind of VM exits to be able to notify the VMM about guests' Heki configurations and policy violations. Indeed, forwarding such signals to the VMM could help improve attack detection, and react to such attempt (e.g. log events, stop the VM). Giving visibility to the VMM would also enable us to migrate VMs. # Threat model The main threat model is a malicious user space process exploiting a kernel vulnerability to gain more privileges or to bypass the access-control system. This threat also covers attacks coming from network or storage data (e.g., malformed network packet, inconsistent drive content). Considering all potential ways to compromise a kernel, Heki's goal is to harden a sane kernel before a runtime attack to make it more difficult, and potentially to cause such an attack to fail. Because current attack mitigations are only mitigations, we consider the kernel itself to be partially malicious during its lifetime e.g., because a ROP attack that could disable kernel self-protection mechanisms and make kernel exploitation much easier. Indeed, an exploit is often split into several stages, each bypassing some security measures (including CFI). CR pinning should already be enforced by the guest kernel and the reason to pin such registers is the same. With this patch series it significantly improve such protection. Getting the guarantee that these control registers cannot be changed increases the cost of an attack. # Prerequisites For this new security layer to be effective, guest kernels must be trusted by the VM owners at boot time, before launching any user space processes nor receiving potentially malicious network packets. It is then required to have a security mechanism to provide or check this initial trust (e.g., secure boot, kernel module signing). To protect against persistent attacks, complementary security mechanisms should be used (e.g., IMA, IPE, Lockdown). # How does it work? The KVM_HC_LOCK_CR_UPDATE hypercall enables guests to pin some of its CPU control register flags (e.g., X86_CR0_WP, X86_CR4_SMEP, X86_CR4_SMAP). Two new kinds of VM exits are implemented: one for a guest Heki request (i.e. hypercall), and another for a guest attempt to change its pinned CRs. When the guest attempts to update pinned CRs or to access memory in a way that is not allowed, the VMM can then be notified and react to such attack attempt. After that, if the VM is still running, KVM sends a GP fault to the guest. The guest could then send a signal to the user space process that triggered this policy violation (not implemented). Heki can be enabled with the heki=1 boot command argument. # Similar implementations Here is a non-exhaustive list of similar implementations that we looked at and took some ideas from. Linux mainline doesn't support such security features, let's change that! Windows's Virtualization-Based Security is a proprietary technology that provides a superset of this kind of security mechanism, relying on Hyper-V and Virtual Trust Levels which enables to have light and secure VM enforcing restrictions on a full guest VM. This includes several components such as HVCI for code authenticity, or HyperGuard for monitoring and protecting kernel code and data. Samsung's Real-time Kernel Protection (RKP) and Huawei Hypervisor Execution Environment (HHEE) rely on proprietary hypervisors to protect some Android devices. They monitor critical kernel data (e.g., page tables, credentials, selinux_enforcing). The iOS Kernel Patch Protection (KPP/Watchtower) is a proprietary solution running in EL3 that monitors and protects critical parts of the kernel. It is now replaced with a hardware-based mechanism: KTTR/RoRgn. Bitdefender's Hypervisor Memory Introspection (HVMI) is an open-source (but out of tree) set of components leveraging virtualization. HVMI implementation is very complex, and this approach implies potential semantic gap issues (i.e., kernel data structures may change from one version to another). Linux Kernel Runtime Guard is an open-source kernel module that can detect some kernel data illegitimate modifications. Because it is the same kernel as the compromised one, an attacker could also bypass or disable these checks. Intel's Virtualization Based Hardening [4] [5] is an open-source proof-of-concept of a thin hypervisor dedicated to guest protection. As such, it cannot be used to manage several VMs. # Similar Linux patches Paravirtualized Control Register pinning [3] added a set of KVM IOCTLs to restrict some flags to be set. Heki doesn't implement such user space interface, but only a dedicated hypercall to lock such registers. A superset of these flags is configurable with Heki. The Hypervisor Based Integrity patches [6] [7] only contain a generic IPC mechanism (KVM_HC_UCALL hypercall) to request protection to the VMM. The idea was to extend the KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION IOCTL to support more permission than read-only. # Current limitations This patch series doesn't handle VM reboot, kexec, nor hybernate yet. We'd like to leverage the realated feature from KVM CR-pinning patch series [3]. Help appreciated! We noticed that the KUnit tests don't work on AMD because the exception table seems to not be properly handled (i.e. a double fault is received). Any reason why this would differ from an Intel's CPU? What about extending register pinning to MSRs? This should first be implemented as a kernel self-protection though. This patch series is also a call for collaboration. There is a lot to do, either on hypervisors, guest kernels or VMMs sides. # Resources You can find related resources, including previous versions, and conference talks about this work and the related LVBS project here: https://github.com/heki-linux [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211006173113.26445-1-alazar@bitdefender.com/ [2] https://www.linux-kvm.org/images/7/72/KVMForum2017_Introspection.pdf [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200617190757.27081-1-john.s.andersen@intel.com/ [4] https://github.com/intel/vbh [5] https://sched.co/TmwN [6] https://sched.co/eE3f [7] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200501185147.208192-1-yuanyu@google.com/ Please reach out to us by replying to this thread, we're looking for people to join and collaborate on this project! Previous versions: v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231113022326.24388-1-mic@digikod.net v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230505152046.6575-1-mic@digikod.net Regards, Madhavan T. Venkataraman (1): virt: Introduce Hypervisor Enforced Kernel Integrity (Heki) Mickaël Salaün (4): KVM: x86: Add new hypercall to lock control registers KVM: x86: Add notifications for Heki policy configuration and violation heki: Lock guest control registers at the end of guest kernel init virt: Add Heki KUnit tests Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/hypercalls.rst | 17 ++ Kconfig | 2 + arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h | 1 + arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h | 2 + arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 7 +- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/hypervisor.c | 1 + arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 56 +++++++ arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig | 1 + arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 6 + arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/x86/kvm/x86.h | 23 +++ include/linux/heki.h | 54 +++++++ include/linux/kvm_host.h | 7 + include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 22 +++ include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h | 1 + init/main.c | 3 + mm/mm_init.c | 1 + virt/Makefile | 1 + virt/heki/.kunitconfig | 9 ++ virt/heki/Kconfig | 43 ++++++ virt/heki/Makefile | 4 + virt/heki/common.h | 16 ++ virt/heki/heki-test.c | 114 ++++++++++++++ virt/heki/main.c | 68 ++++++++ 25 files changed, 638 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/heki.h create mode 100644 virt/heki/.kunitconfig create mode 100644 virt/heki/Kconfig create mode 100644 virt/heki/Makefile create mode 100644 virt/heki/common.h create mode 100644 virt/heki/heki-test.c create mode 100644 virt/heki/main.c base-commit: e67572cd2204894179d89bd7b984072f19313b03