linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/35] KVM: SVM: Prevent debugging under SEV-ES

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, 16 Sep 2020 09:02:12 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/35] KVM: SVM: Prevent debugging under SEV-ES

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:11:10AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 9/15/20 3:13 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > On 9/15/20 11:30 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> I don't quite follow the "doesn't mean debugging can't be done in the future".
> >> Does that imply that debugging could be supported for SEV-ES guests, even if
> >> they have an encrypted VMSA?
> > 
> > Almost anything can be done with software. It would require a lot of
> > hypervisor and guest code and changes to the GHCB spec, etc. So given
> > that, probably just the check for arch.guest_state_protected is enough for
> > now. I'll just need to be sure none of the debugging paths can be taken
> > before the VMSA is encrypted.
> 
> So I don't think there's any guarantee that the KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG ioctl
> couldn't be called before the VMSA is encrypted, meaning I can't check the
> arch.guest_state_protected bit for that call. So if we really want to get
> rid of the allow_debug() op, I'd need some other way to indicate that this
> is an SEV-ES / protected state guest.

Would anything break if KVM "speculatively" set guest_state_protected before
LAUNCH_UPDATE_VMSA?  E.g. does KVM need to emulate before LAUNCH_UPDATE_VMSA?

> How are you planning on blocking this ioctl for TDX? Would the
> arch.guest_state_protected bit be sit earlier than is done for SEV-ES?

Yep, guest_state_protected is set from time zero (kvm_x86_ops.vm_init) as
guest state is encrypted/inaccessible from the get go.  The flag actually
gets turned off for debuggable TDX guests, but that's also forced to happen
before the KVM_RUN can be invoked (TDX architecture) and is a one-time
configuration, i.e. userspace can flip the switch exactly once, and only at
a very specific point in time.