linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 41/62] x86/sev-es: Handle MSR events

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:   Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:45:41 +0100
From:   Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/62] x86/sev-es: Handle MSR events

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:59:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/13/20 11:23 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Yes, investigating this is on the list for future optimizations (besides
> > caching CPUID results). My idea is to use alternatives patching for
> > this. But the exception handling is needed anyway because #VC
> > exceptions happen very early already, basically the first thing after
> > setting up a stack is calling verify_cpu(), which uses CPUID.
> 
> Ahh, bummer.  How does a guest know that it's running under SEV-ES?
> What's the enumeration mechanism if CPUID doesn't "work"?

There are two ways a guest can find out:

	1) Read the SEV_STATUS_MSR and check for the SEV-ES bit
	2) If a #VC exception is raised it also knows it runs as an
	   SEV-ES guest

This patch-set implements both ways at the appropriate stages of the
boot process. Very early it just installs a #VC handler without checking
whether it is running under SEV-ES and handles the exceptions when they
are raised.

Later in the boot process it also reads the SEV_STATUS_MSR and sets a
cpu_feature flag to do alternative patching based on its value.

> > The other reason is that things like MMIO and IOIO instructions can't be
> > easily patched by alternatives. Those would work with the runtime
> > checking you showed above, though.
> 
> Is there a reason we can't make a rule that you *must* do MMIO through
> an accessor function so we *can* patch them?  I know random drivers
> might break the rule, but are SEV-ES guests going to be running random
> drivers?  I would think that they mostly if not all want to use
> virtio.

Yeah, there are already defined accessor functions for MMIO, like
read/write[bwlq] and memcpy_toio/memcpy_fromio. It is probably worth
testing what performance overhead is involved in overloading these to
call directly into the paravirt path when SEV-ES is enabled. With
alternatives patching it would still add a couple of NOPS for the
non-SEV-ES case.

But all that does not remove the need for the #VC exception handler, as
#VC exceptions can also be triggered by user-space, and the instruction
emulation for MMIO will be needed to allow MMIO in user-space (the
patch-set currently does not allow that, but it could be needed in the
future).

Regards,

	Joerg