linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/13] dma-direct: handle the memory encryption bit in common code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:44:29 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Muli Ben-Yehuda <mulix@...ix.org>,
        Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] dma-direct: handle the memory encryption bit in
 common code

On 03/13/2018 08:10 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 02:48:51PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Ok, I found one issue that allows this to work when the IOMMU isn't
>> enabled (see below).
> 
> Thanks, folded!
> 
>> But the bigger issue is when the IOMMU is enabled.  The IOMMU code uses
>> a common mapping routine to create the I/O page tables.  This routine
>> assumes that all memory being mapped is encrypted and therefore sets the
>> encryption bit in the I/O page tables.  With this patch, the call to
>> dma_alloc_direct() now returns un-encrypted memory which results in an
>> encryption mis-match.  I think keeping dma_alloc_direct() as it was prior
>> to this patch is the way to go.  It allows SME DMA allocations to remain
>> encrypted and avoids added complexity in the amd_iommu.c file.  This
>> would mean that SEV would still have special DMA operations (so that the
>> alloc/free can change the memory to un-encrypted).
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> In terms of logic you are right.  I still don't like keeping a just
> slightly tweaked version of dma_alloc_direct around just for this, it
> will be perpetually out of sync in terms of features and bug fixes.
> 
> What do you think about this version that does the decision at runtime:
> 
> 	http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/commitdiff/b89f24dc856595dc7610d672bf077195ab0dabf4
> 
> The full tree is available here for testing:
> 
> 	git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git dma-direct-x86
> 

Thanks for the pointer to the tree.  I did find one bug in the
allocation routine, that once fixed (see below), worked with SME
for IOMMU on and off and worked with an SEV guest.

I understand the comment about using sev_active() in the dma-direct
code, maybe we can up with something later to address that.

Thanks,
Tom

diff --git a/lib/dma-direct.c b/lib/dma-direct.c
index 856e140..988a3d8 100644
--- a/lib/dma-direct.c
+++ b/lib/dma-direct.c
@@ -82,10 +82,12 @@ void *dma_direct_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t
size, dma_addr_t *dma_handle,

 	if (!page)
 		return NULL;
-	*dma_handle = __phys_to_dma(dev, page_to_phys(page));
+	*dma_handle = phys_to_dma(dev, page_to_phys(page));
 	ret = page_address(page);
-	if (sev_active())
+	if (sev_active()) {
+		*dma_handle = __phys_to_dma(dev, page_to_phys(page));
 		set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)ret, 1 << page_order);
+	}
 	memset(ret, 0, size);
 	return ret;
 }