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