linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 40/70] x86/sev-es: Setup per-cpu GHCBs for the runtime handler

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:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:18:36 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <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>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 40/70] x86/sev-es: Setup per-cpu GHCBs for the runtime
 handler

On 4/14/20 3:16 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/14/20 3:12 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 4/14/20 1:04 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>>> set_memory_decrypted needs to check the return value. I see it
>>>> consistently return ENOMEM. I've traced that back to split_large_page
>>>> in arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c.
>>>
>>> At that point the guest won't be able to communicate with the
>>> hypervisor, too. Maybe we should BUG() here to terminate further
>>> processing?
>>
>> Escalating an -ENOMEM into a crashed kernel seems a bit extreme.
>> Granted, the guest may be in an unrecoverable state, but the host
>> doesn't need to be too.
>>
> 
> The host wouldn't be. This only happens in a guest, so it would be just 
> causing the guest kernel to panic early in the boot.

And I should add that it would only impact an SEV-ES guest.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
>